ANGUS: Trump the Traitor Is in the Clear
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2026 9:51 amANGUS: Trump the Traitor Is in the Clear
Charlie Angus / The Resistance - February 27, 2026
EXCERPT: "Amid the ongoing chaos in MAGAstan, a recent court ruling may have slipped your attention.
Florida Judge Aileen Cannon permanently blocked the release of the Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on Donald Trump’s fight over presidential documents hidden at his golf course at Mar-A-Lago.
Judge Cannon claimed that if anyone saw the evidence, it would cause “irreparable damage” to President Trump.
She is correct in this.
However, her statement that access to the report would “contravene basic notions of fairness and justice” is an indication of how perverted justice is in the autocracy of Donald Trump.
I will get to Judge Cannon’s active role in subverting justice to protect Trump. But first, let’s cut through the media lines about the case.
By and large, the articles refer to Special Counsel Smith’s report as being one side in a “dispute” about presidential papers. At most, it was about the possible “mishandling of sensitive documents”.
This is not true. . . . ."
[ https://charlieangus.substack.com/p/tru ... dium=email ]
Charlie Angus / The Resistance - February 27, 2026
EXCERPT: "Amid the ongoing chaos in MAGAstan, a recent court ruling may have slipped your attention.
Florida Judge Aileen Cannon permanently blocked the release of the Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on Donald Trump’s fight over presidential documents hidden at his golf course at Mar-A-Lago.
Judge Cannon claimed that if anyone saw the evidence, it would cause “irreparable damage” to President Trump.
She is correct in this.
However, her statement that access to the report would “contravene basic notions of fairness and justice” is an indication of how perverted justice is in the autocracy of Donald Trump.
I will get to Judge Cannon’s active role in subverting justice to protect Trump. But first, let’s cut through the media lines about the case.
By and large, the articles refer to Special Counsel Smith’s report as being one side in a “dispute” about presidential papers. At most, it was about the possible “mishandling of sensitive documents”.
This is not true. . . . ."
[ https://charlieangus.substack.com/p/tru ... dium=email ]