Raw Story

Donald Trump spent Christmas Eve ranting on his personal social media site, but his engagement seemed low as normal people spent the evening with family, friends or caroling in church.

Instead, Trump posted one rambling rant, spraying conspiracy theories like Aqua Net across his hair. "Crooked Joe Biden," "Crazy Nancy Pelosi," "Derranged Jack Smith," and demanding the House Select Committee that investigated the 2020 election and Jan. 6 attack be prosecuted for "destroying and deleting all of their evidence."

Trump has already been told by a judge once that there was no destroying or deleting of evidence. Still, he continues.

READ MORE: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

It's unclear if it was due to the slow "re-truth" rate or lack of "likes," but about 10 minutes later, Trump posted another rant, this time in all capital letters. This time he attacked the House Select Committee saying the same thing about them deleting evidence.

Thirty minutes after the first post, and about 15 minutes after the first all-caps rant, Trump posted another all-caps status attacking Biden and Smith again using the same language about Smith being "deranged." He repeated his signature language about being a victim and being persecuted.

He ultimately ends the internet screaming with: "IT’S CALLED ELECTION INTERFERENCE. MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

The strategy worked, his supporters devoured the all-caps rant over his longer rambling diatribe with nearly twice the "re-truths."

He reposted an outdated poll and seems to have backed away from the internet after that.

The post came after Trump delivered his 2023 Christmas message that God will help him win in 2024.

Last week, the Supreme Court turned down special counsel Jack Smith's plea to rush Donald Trump's appeal straight to the High Court so that it can be resolved quickly.

According to columnist Ron Brownstein, the Supreme Court isn't stupid, they know exactly what Trump is trying to do, they simply have to choose whether or not to be complicit.

Political analyst Julian Zelizer began the conversation by saying that Trump's goal isn't to win but to delay. If he can delay past the 2024 election, then he can demand that his attorney general stop his prosecutions in 2025.

READ MORE: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

"As long as the case is resolved before the election, that is the key, really," said Brownstein. "Trump's goal is to have it not be resolved. We see in polling that it may sound incredible, given how much information is out there, but there is a significant slice of voters that say that a conviction might matter to them more than an indictment for Trump."

He explained that people like Chief Justice John Roberts and the rest of the Supreme Court justices "live in the real world. They know Trump is trying to push this out as far as he can, so it does not resolved before the election. And they have a choice to make: whether they want to be complicit in that or not."

He said that Roberts is desperate for a unanimous decision on things like this that speak to the future of the power of the presidency, but it's a long shot. He said that the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision was the beginning of distrust of the High Court in the eyes of the American public.

"I think he would like to avoid that," Brownstein continued. "Maybe the way to do that is in essence join these two rulings. I'd also point out that, you know, the idea that — clearly, the indictments of Trump affect the nomination. Joe Biden's approval rating is under 40 percent, and the two of them are running even. The idea there is no resistance, no cost to Trump for his behavior isn't supported by the facts."

See the video below or at the link here.

Supreme Court knows what Trump is doing, and can choose whether to be complicit: columnist youtu.be

The Supreme Court rejecting Jack Smith's request to expedite former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims is a win for the former president — but he is far from out of the woods yet, argued former White House ethics czar Norm Eisen on a CNN panel Friday.

"There are ... accelerating factors that may come into play," said Eisen. "The Supreme Court, when it gets it, may simply say, as they did in Trump v. Thompson, the big case about whether Congress could investigate Trump and could pierce the executive privilege, cert denied. They did the same thing when the special master was appointed, 11th Circuit overturned that in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. They refused to hear it. That could be an accelerant ... and another thing that could accelerate, the D.C. Circuit has the power to turn the stay of the case down or off."

"Personally, I think Jack Smith was too conservative in not fighting to say, I want to do those things that will keep the case going, like jury selection, I just won't empanel the jury," he continued. "This panel is going to be by reading their opinions, studying their careers. They think this immunity is inimical to American law, it's borderline frivolous."

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

But one of the biggest potential issues for Trump, he said, is that he's still facing other state-level cases — and one, Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg's business fraud case, already has a trial date ready to go.

Bragg, said Eisen, "didn't count on all these projections and schedules and orders. He said, I'm a prosecutor, I've got a trial date, March 25th, 2024, and he's reaffirmed that he's ready to go. So we will see a case."

"And that brings in this polling where the American people, in that big New York Times/Siena poll, a 14-point swing in the six swing states if there's a conviction," he added. "So it is going to be a very unpredictable calendar politically and legally in the first six months of 2024."

Watch the video below or at the link.

Norm Eisen says Alvin Bragg is still ready to go www.youtube.com

After a series of losses before Judge Cannon, Special Counsel Jack Smith has secured a partial victory over former president Donald Trump.

Smith, who is prosecuting Trump over the alleged retention of numerous classified documents at Trump's Mar-a-Lago golf resort in Florida, asked the court to begin the process of discussing jury questionnaires and set a timeline by which he would like to do so.

Trump filed a brief challenging that motion, saying the prosecutor's "concern about 'insufficient time to implement' jury selection measures is entirely illusory and based exclusively on the partisan talismanic significance they have assigned to May 20, 2024." Smith replied in turn, calling out what he called the Trump team's "baseless accusations."

Cannon, who has been accused of favoring Trump in her rulings, has granted Smith a partial victory by adopting a tentative schedule.

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

"Judge Cannon gives Jack Smith a partial W on prepping a jury questionnaire - ordering up a joint version by Feb. 28 with clear denoting of areas of disagreement. Smith wanted it by Feb. 2," The Messenger editor Darren Samuelsohn wrote Friday.

"On or before February 28, 2024, the parties shall meaningfully confer and file a joint jury questionnaire for the Court's consideration, clearly denoting any areas of agreement and disagreement," the brief ruling states. "The court reserves ruling on the specific process by which questionnaires will be transmitted/completed."

The court added that its ruling "shall not be construed as modifying the instructions and deadlines" already set by Cannon.

Donald Trump will not be given special sentencing treatment if convicted of conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election, says Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

CNN caught up with Willis at an event on Thursday.

"I know that in the media, and even in the world, we like instant gratification," Willis explained. "The judicial process is a long process, and so we'll be here with that case for a while."

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

The reporter asked the district attorney if Trump would go to prison.

"I think that everyone in society is the same, and I don't know why that's such a difficult concept for people," she replied. "You can look at the charges, and based on those charges, we'll be recommending appropriate sentences. No one gets a special break because of their status."

Watch the video below from CNN or click here.

Special Counsel Jack Smith plans to introduce as evidence election fraud claims former President Donald Trump made during his successful 2016 campaign, new court filings show.

Smith filed Tuesday a disclosure notice detailing historic evidence the lead prosecutor plans to introduce in the Washington D.C. federal court case against Trump, court records show.

"These statements sowed mistrust in the results of the presidential election and laid the foundation for the defendant’s criminal efforts," Smith argues. "In addition to this intrinsic evidence of false statements about the election, the Government will offer evidence reflecting the defendant’s historical record of making such claims."

“The defendant’s false claims about the 2012 and 2016 elections are admissible because they demonstrate the defendant’s common plan of falsely blaming fraud for election results he does not like,” Smith writes, “as well as his motive, intent, and plan to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election results and illegitimately retain power.”

Smith cites a tweet written by Trump on Oct. 17, 2016, one week after the Washington Post published the damning “grab them by the p----” video experts believed at the time would torpedo his campaign.

“Of course there is large scale fraud happening on and before election day,” Trump wrote, according to the filing. “Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!”

That same month, at a presidential debate moderated by Fox News’ Chris Wallace, Trump was asked if he would accept the election results. Smith seeks to submit Trump's response.

ALSO READ: George Santos’ potential replacement also has financial ethics issues

“There is a tradition in this country — in fact, one of the prides of this country — is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign the loser concedes to the winner,” Wallace said.

“Not saying that you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?”

“What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time,” Trump replied. “I’ll keep you in suspense. OK?”

His opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was quick to chime in, the transcript shows.

“Let me respond to that, because that’s horrifying,” Clinton said. “You know, every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is, is rigged against him.”

Smith also plans to include voter fraud claims from 2012, when former President Barack Obama defeated his conservative challenger, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), and a disturbing media interview in September 2020 when a journalist once again asked Trump if he would commit himself to the peaceful transition of power.

“Well, we’re going to have to see what happens,” Trump replied, according to the filing. “There won’t be a transfer, frankly; there’ll be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it.”

Smith is leading the charge in two of four criminal cases against the former president in Washington D.C., where he stands accused of conspiring to defraud the U.S., and Florida, where Trump stands accused of corruptly concealing a document or record. He has pleaded not guilty in both cases.

In his Tuesday filing, the prosecutor argues Trump's election fraud comments prove motive and intent to overturn the election he lost to President Joe Biden.

“The defendant’s false claims about the 2012 and 2016 elections are admissible because they demonstrate the defendant’s common plan of falsely blaming fraud for election results he does not like,” Smith writes, “as well as his motive, intent, and plan to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election results and illegitimately retain power.”