June 5, 2023 --

CLICK HERE TO VIEW LINK

Here are the opening paragraphs to a May 23 New York Times story, "Information Is Sought on Trump's Foreign Deals," by Alan Feuer, Maggie Haberman, and Ben Protess:

"Federal prosecutors overseeing the investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s handling of classified documents have issued a subpoena for information about Mr. Trump’s business dealings in foreign countries since he took office, according to two people familiar with the matter.

"It remains unclear precisely what the prosecutors were hoping to find by sending the subpoena to Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, or when it was issued. But the subpoena suggests that investigators have cast a wider net than previously understood as they scrutinize whether he broke the law in taking sensitive government materials with him upon leaving the White House and then not fully complying with demands for their return."

The Times' trio is obviously pulling our leg in writing "It remains unclear precisely" what the Biden prosecutors are up to in this matter. The prosecutors are doing their best, aided by Biden's battalions in the media, to divert attention away from signs of Biden corruption.

They go on to suggest "that Mr. Smith is exploring whether there is any connection between Mr. Trump's deal-making abroad and the classified documents he took with him when he left office." [Emphasis added, to call attention to the trio's habit of finding Mr. Trump guilty without even being charged.]

Now, please, consider the following:

Former president Donald J. Trump has been indicted in Manhattan, with the trial to takeplace, curiously, next March, during the presidential primary season.

This summer, a Georgia prosecutor will likely indict the former president on election allegations.

Thereafter, special Biden consigliere Jack Smith will chime in on a classified documents rap.

Seems to LPR political hounding of a former president to bring him down.

Also seems to LPR that former president Trump needs protection under the Former Presidents Act of 2012 -- with said act amended to require all legal proceedings brought against a former president to be heard in federal court, with the former president given the right to select the venue to preclude retaliation by a politically-biased jury,

The circumstances of the Manhattan indictment brought by the Soros-supported Alvin Bragg are clearly bizarre. As will be the likely prosecution in Georgia. (And this is without mentioning the E. Jean Carroll matter in a tilted federal courtroom -- which is why a former president should have the right to a change of venue -- in federal court, too.)

A former president should not be the target of local or state prosecutors seeking to houns him after he leaves office. Neither should he be hounded by a successor of an opposing party -- particularly a successor desperate to use the former president as means to cover-up his own misdeeds -- aided by a media anxious to use the First Amendment as weapon in support of the incumbent.

House Republicans under the leadership of Speaker McCarthy and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan should act, forthwith, to amend the Former Presidents Act of 2012.

Former presidents deserve protection from partisan prosecutors at the local, state and federal levels. Isn't that what the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 should be all about?