Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Crime Elections Government Overreach How sick is this? Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Attorney John Lauro: Trump Is Being Criminalized For Objecting To The Way That 2020 Election Was Handled.

Visits: 56

Attorney John Lauro: Trump Is Being Criminalized For Objecting To The Way That 2020 Election Was Handled.

This writer ( Right or Wrong ) has decided that the Trump indictments are nothing but cover for the Biden Cartel possible crimes. I’ve decided, that after today to pretty much ignore these falsehoods. Now if there is something that’s newsworthy I’ll comment on it. But there’s so much news out there that’s news worthy. Enjoy the article below.

Trump attorney John Lauro spoke to FOX News host Bret Baier on Tuesday following the announcement of another indictment against the former president. Lauro said Trump is being criminalized for questioning whether the 2020 election was conducted in a valid way.

Lauro said when this case goes to trial, “we’re going to be representing not just President Trump, but every single American that believes in the First Amendment and believes in your ability to redress and bring grievances to Congress.”

“It’s not just issues of fraud,” Lauro said of the 2020 election. It’s also the fact that procedures were changed, undeniably so, that procedures at the state level were changed without the ability of the legislature to weigh in. And what President Trump was raising when he asked Vice President Pence to send it back to the state legislatures was to give the legislature in each state of those contested states one last chance to make a determination, because the reality is that the state legislatures in every state has the ultimate responsibility ability for qualifying electors.”

“What Mr. Trump did was exactly constitutionally precise and in order,” he added.

“Nothing was done in a way that wasn’t constitutionally permissible,” he said. “It’s all politics. It’s all politics. And if we’re criminalizing politics, what’s going to happen when the Republicans are next in office? Think about the pressure that’s going to be put on a Republican president to go after and indict sitting Democrats now in Congress or in statehouses for their political views.”

Transcript, via FOX News:

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: We need a whiteboard for all of this. It is like planes going into La Guardia with this legal situation.

But the person who’s dealing with this case joins us now. John Lauro is former President Trump’s lead attorney on this specific case. He joins us with his first public reaction.

John, thanks for being here.

JOHN LAURO, ATTORNEY FOR FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Good evening.

BAIER: You heard what the special counsel said. You have read the indictment. Your client’s been talking about it quite a bit today on TRUTH Social.

Your thoughts on this?

LAURO: It’s a terribly tragic day that we find ourselves in, where political speech now has been criminalized, where an existing Justice Department, Merrick Garland, has a boss. His name is Joe Biden.

And Joe Biden is running against Donald Trump and losing currently. And now we have that Justice Department indicting President Trump for actions that he took as the executive — as the chief executive of the United States with respect to public policy matters.

So, now we have the criminalization and the weaponization of public policy and political speech by one political party over another. And it’s not surprising when it comes. It comes on the heels of unbelievable allegations against Mr. Biden and his son, as well as the fact that Donald Trump is leading in the polls right now.

And now we have what essentially is a regurgitation of the allegations in the January 6 report, which was highly political. It really reads no differently. So it’s really an astounding document, because, for the first time in American history, a former president is being prosecuted by a political opponent, who wields the power of the criminal justice system, for what he believed in and the policies and the political speech that he carried out as president.

This is unprecedented. It affects not just Donald Trump. It affects every American, who now realizes that the First Amendment is under assault. It’s under attack by the Biden administration. We now have a political incumbent who is attacking Americans for their beliefs, attacking Americans for their speech, and attacking Americans for their politics.

This has never happened in the history of our country, and it’s playing out right now.

BAIER: Yes, John, let me read from the indictment, and you can respond to this specifically.

It says: “The defendant lost the 2020 presidential election. Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power. So, more — for more than two months following the Election Day, November 3, 2020, the defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the defendant knew that they were false, created an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and eroded public faith in the administration of the election.”

LAURO: I would like them to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump believed that these allegations were false.

What did he see in real time? He saw changes in election procedure in the middle of the game being carried out by executive-level — people at the state level, election officials, but not the state legislatures.

He had an advice of counsel, a very detailed memorandum from a constitutional expert who said: Mr. President, these states are complaining about what happened. You, as the executive, have the ability to ask Vice President Pence to pause the vote on January 6, have these states audit and recertify, and, that way, we know ultimately who won the election.

And that’s the only thing that President Trump suggested. There’s nothing unlawful about that. He was entitled to do that, as the chief executive officer carrying out the laws, and nothing about that was obstructive.

It was quite interesting that Mr. Smith talked about the violence on Capitol Hill. He’s not being charged with that. There’s no allegation that President Trump incited any violence or did anything to cause any violence. Just the opposite. He’s being indicted for free speech.

He’s being indicted for objecting to the way that the 2020 election was carried out. And any American that takes that view should be equally concerned, are they next? Because the reality is that, if a president can be indicted for free speech, then anybody can be indicted.

So, when this case goes to trial, we’re going to be representing not just President Trump, but every single American that believes in the First Amendment and believes in your ability to redress and bring grievances to Congress.

And that’s exactly what people were doing. You had these alternate electors that said to the Congress: We have serious doubts about what happened in the 2020 election. We’re bringing these grievances to you. Listen to us.

That’s being criminalized now. Don’t forget, we had an extraordinary set…

BAIER: Yes.

LAURO: … of circumstances in 2020.

We had the COVID virus. We had laws being changed in the middle of the game. And Donald Trump had every responsibility and every right to raise these issues.

BAIER: To your point about what he believed, I talked to the former president a few weeks ago at his place in New Jersey about other things, but the 2020 election came up.

BAIER: You lost the 2020 election.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Bret, you take a look at all of the stuffed ballots, you take a look at all of the things, including things like the 51 intelligence agents.

BAIER: There were recounts in all of the swing states. There was not significant, widespread fraud.

TRUMP: Bret, we’re trying to get recounts, real recounts…

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: … number of votes cast.

BAIER: There were investigations. Widespread corruption, there was not a sense of that.

There were lawsuits, more than 50 of them, by your lawyers, some in front of judges — judges that you appointed…

TRUMP: Bret, are you ready? Look at Wisconsin.

BAIER: … that came out with no evidence.

TRUMP: Wisconsin is — Bret, Wisconsin has practically admitted it was rigged. Other states are doing the same right now. And it’s continued on. It was a rigged election.

BAIER: There have been reviews of every potential case of voter fraud in six battleground states, and they found fewer than 475 cases. It was not affected.

TRUMP: You know why? Because they didn’t look at the right things, Bret.

BAIER: OK. Are you going to…

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: My point in showing that is that he is pushing back on June 20 on that front.

John, when it says that he knew that the election was lost and it quotes people that they have interviewed, what’s the pushback to that?

LAURO: Very easy and very simple. It’s not just issues of fraud. It’s also the fact that procedures were changed, undeniably so, that procedures at the state level were changed without the ability of the legislature to weigh in.

And what President Trump was raising when he asked Vice President Pence to send it back to the state legislatures was to give the legislature in each state of those contested states one last chance to make a determination, because the reality is that the state legislatures in every state has the ultimate responsibility ability for qualifying electors.

So, what Mr. Trump did was exactly constitutionally precise and in order. There was nothing illegal about that. And he was required to take steps as president of the United States to ensure that that election was held in a valid way.

All of that now is being criminalized. The one thing I will say, though, in 2020, Mr. Trump’s campaign had a few weeks to gear up and present evidence, and it was very difficult. We now have the ability in this case to issue our own subpoenas, and we will relitigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation.

It gives President Trump an opportunity that he has never had before, which is to have subpoena power since January 6 in a way that can be exercised in federal court.

BAIER: What you’re talking about, the states, the states did that. Each individual state certified the elections. They were signed by the governors, many of them Republican governors, and many of them Republican secretaries of state, that signed off and certified those election results before they came to Washington, D.C., and we had what was January 6.

LAURO: Right.

BAIER: So, what you’re talking about was done. It was certified.

LAURO: No. No, I’m sorry, but — but you’re missing what Professor Eastman’s advice was.

Professor Eastman said that the state legislatures had not opined and weighed in on the changes that had been done in those various states. And…

BAIER: But each one of those states since that time — now we’re talking about two years later — has not reopened those cases.

They have not — some of them have had audits, but they have not reopened the 2020 election from that point of view. And some of them are Republican legislatures.

LAURO: Yes. And it’s never been presented to the states.

Now what we’re going to have is not just a civil trial, but a criminal trial for Mr. Trump exercising his right to speech. So there may be disagreement about what happened, but the bottom line is, we’re now treating this as a criminal case, rather than, as we’re doing, Bret…

BAIER: Yes.

LAURO: … talking about this in the context of politics and free speech. And — and…

BAIER: Yes. Well, let’s talk about legal for just a second, John.

LAURO: Yes.

BAIER: And you are specifically running point on this case.

And according to our legal analysts…

LAURO: Oh…

BAIER: Is that true?

LAURO: Along with Todd Blanche.

BAIER: Yes.

LAURO: Yes, we’re co-counsel on it, definitely.

BAIER: On the other cases, is it legally somebody else, like, for the documents case? Are you also on that?

LAURO: I’m not on that team. I’m concentrating on the First Amendment issues. I’m concentrating on this case, which is a direct attack on our constitutional principles, only this one.

BAIER: Will you run point in Georgia, if an indictment comes down in Georgia?

LAURO: No. No.

BAIER: Somebody else.

LAURO: Absolutely. There are other groups working on that.

Obviously, there’s coordination around the country. And all of this is being done in the middle of an election season where Donald Trump is winning. So, you have a series of criminal cases that are being brought and serially brought out on a regular basis now, with only one objective in mind, and that’s to interfere in this election cycle, which is now under way.

BAIER: What about the stories that these campaign funds are now paying for legal fees and it’s — and you’re running out of cash in that front?

LAURO: Well, I’m not involved in that.

But the bottom line is, the way that they’re trying to take out Donald Trump is through the legal process. So, he’s being forced to spend money on legal defense which should be spent on the discussion of critical ideas and critical issues. People want to hear the issues. They don’t want to relitigate 2020.

And that’s exactly what the special counsel — I should say Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland and the Biden administration had to sign off on this indictment. And what they have really done is invited now a relitigation of 2020, but this time in a criminal court, which is unprecedented.

No sitting president has ever been criminally charged for his views, for taking a position. And, by the way, is there any doubt there’s two systems of justice in the United States? Was Hillary Clinton prosecuted for the Russian hoax? Were those individuals who said, don’t worry about the Biden — the Biden laptop, because it’s just Russian disinformation, are they being prosecuted?

No. Only one person in America is being prosecuted for his political beliefs. And that should send a chill, a warning to every single American who one day wants to get up and say, this is what I believe in. I disagree with the Biden administration, but these are the beliefs I have, because every person who does that now is subject to a potential criminal case.

BAIER: Last thing.

According to this indictment, they believe that that argument would empower every losing politician to do what former President Trump did, and by using what they call in this indictment false information to stir up people, that the system then breaks down.

It’s — I’m paraphrasing, but, essentially, that’s what it says in this indictment.

LAURO: So, what they’re saying is, politicians may use hyperbolic speech or excessive speech in some way and stir up people, and we’re going to criminalize that.

Good luck in the United States, if that’s where we’re heading. Good luck, because the reality is that everything that Mr. Trump requested to be done was done with the advice of counsel, was done with lawyers giving him advice. Those lawyers are going to come in and testify.

Nothing was done in a way that wasn’t constitutionally permissible. It’s all politics. It’s all politics. And if we’re criminalizing politics, what’s going to happen when the Republicans are next in office? Think about the pressure that’s going to be put on a Republican president to go after and indict sitting Democrats now in Congress or in statehouses for their political views.

And then we have this vicious circle once the criminal justice system has been politicized.

 

Loading

207
Categories
Elections Links from other news sources. The Courts

Winning. Trump Immune From Suit for Election Comments Made in Office.

Visits: 29

Winning. Trump Immune From Suit for Election Comments Made in Office. A poll worker in Delaware County, PA. Filed several lawsuits against former President Trump in reference to comments he made while President.

A Pennsylvania state court judge ruled that presidential immunity is broad enough to protect Donald Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was rigged, even if he didn’t really believe the conspiracy.

Judge Michael Erdos in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Monday granted Trump immunity on two claims made in a 2021 lawsuit by voting-machine supervisor James Savage.

Savage claimed Trump damaged his reputation by falsely claiming he tampered with the 2020 election result, which resulted in death threats and two heart attacks.

Loading

148
Categories
Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts

Alvin Bragg Suffers Major Court Loss in Bogus Trump Case.

Visits: 45

Alvin Bragg Suffers Major Court Loss in Bogus Trump Case. The affirmative action NY DA went fishing. He tried to get Melania Trumps e-mails. What an Ass.

Prosecutors for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office had issued the subpoenas seeking emails from Melania Trump and other documents as part of Mr. Bragg’s case against the former president over alleged falsification of business records.

But those subpoenas were quashed by New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, who said in a ruling (pdf) attached to a July 27 court filing that the subpoenas were far too broad in scope.

The requests for Melania Trump’s emails, and other documents “would yield significantly more responsive records than necessary,” the judge wrote in his ruling, which was issued on July 7 but made public when attached to a July 27 filing that included a letter from prosecutors to Judge Merchan, seeking clarification on an unrelated matter.

Bragg was also requesting President Trump’s testimony in the completely fraudulent E. Jean Carroll case. Carroll, a woman Trump has never met, accused President Trump of raping her in a department store he never enters to shop at sometime in the 1990s, but she’s not sure of the date. Of course, New York Democrats allowed this junk lawsuit to proceed.

 

Loading

162
Categories
Biden Cartel Links from other news sources. The Courts

How many times does the Senate have to be warned? You don’t tell us what to do.

Visits: 377

How many times does the Senate have to be warned? You don’t tell us what to do. A conservative Supreme Court justice has issued a harsh rebuke against leftist lawmakers in Congress trying to implement an ethics code for the Court.

What part of this doesn’t the left get? “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito said. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

According to the Washington Post, Michael Mukasey, who served as attorney general under President George W. Bush, agreed with Alito in his assessment of the issue.

“A law compelling the court to adopt such a code, or purporting to impose one legislatively, would violate the principle of separation of powers, and would also be unworkable inasmuch as there is no authority other than the justices themselves to apply such a code,” he said to a Senate committee.

Loading

268
Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Uncategorized

Oh, you poor baby. Former US attorney raises red flag about Judge Aileen Cannon’s Trump trial scheduling.

Visits: 13

Oh, you poor baby. Former US attorney raises red flag about Judge Aileen Cannon’s Trump trial scheduling.

Story by Tom Boggioni Raw Story.

Donald Trump, Aileen Cannon
© Raw Story

Reflecting on concerns about Donald Trump’s trial date in a Florida courtroom where special counsel Jack Smith will attempt to make the case that the former president stole national defense secret documents and defied efforts by the government to reclaim them, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance acknowledged that it is very likely the date will get moved and then cautioned to expect a very long delay that could extend until after the 2024 presidential election.

At issue, she explained in her Substack column published on Monday, is the simple fact that federal judges like U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon have busy schedules and fitting in what is expected to be a month-long trial is no easy task.

As it stands now, the Trump trial is expected to begin in May of 2024 after the DOJ asked for a December 2023 date.

 
 

“If Judge Cannon were to decide that… a delay in the trial date was necessary, it’s unlikely that would mean the trial would get pushed back a few days, or a week,” she wrote. “That’s because federal judges don’t usually have big open blocks of time on their calendar.”

 

 

“If Judge Cannon were to decide that… a delay in the trial date was necessary, it’s unlikely that would mean the trial would get pushed back a few days, or a week,” she wrote. “That’s because federal judges don’t usually have big open blocks of time on their calendar.”

As Vance explained, finding a block of uninterrupted time won’t be easy.

 
 



“If Judge Cannon were to decide that… a delay in the trial date was necessary, it’s unlikely that would mean the trial would get pushed back a few days, or a week,” she wrote. “That’s because federal judges don’t usually have big open blocks of time on their calendar.”

 
 


She added, “Setting a new date would mean looking for open space on the Judge’s calendar. Trump’s lawyers said the trial would take months, but even if we go with the government’s more reasonable suggestion of weeks, a delay could easily move the trial back until after the election.”

“While Judge Cannon may have deemed it unnecessary to consider the 2024 election at ‘this juncture,’ that doesn’t mean she won’t revisit her decision down the road and permit Trump to campaign instead of appear in court. But even mundane delays could derail the speedy trial the Special Counsel has worked so had to obtain here,” she concluded.


Loading

106
Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Crime Links from other news sources. The Courts

Federal Judge slaps down Biden witch-hunt again.

Visits: 27

Federal Judge slaps down Biden witch-hunt again. Yes my friends the Federal Judge again put a hurting to the Biden Cartel. Judge Terry Doughty denied the Biden Administration’s attempt to halt preliminary injunction pending the outcome of appeal in the historic First Amendment case that was reported on Independence Day.

The Cartel wanted the judge to allow them to continue their meetings of misinformation with Social Media. At least until they hopefully could get a favorable ruling from the 5th. Judge said no.

Loading

74

Categories
Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Uncategorized

Extremists’ on SCOTUS Are ‘Screaming’ About Rulings that Follow Liberal Principles

Visits: 20

Extremists’ on SCOTUS Are ‘Screaming’ About Rulings that Follow Liberal Principles.

On Thursday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Harvard Law Professor, author, and Newsmax Legal Analyst Alan Dershowitz stated that the Supreme Court’s rulings on President Joe Biden’s loan program, racial preferences in college admissions, and free expression are consistent with liberal views, but “it’s extremists, both on the court and off the court, that are screaming and yelling that somehow this ends democracy in America.”

Dershowitz said, “All three of these decisions are close cases that — I’m a liberal, I’ve been a liberal for 60 years, I happen to agree with all of these three cases. I have been arguing against using race in affirmative action since 1974. I have always preferred free expression and the First Amendment over any other laws, whether it be public accommodation laws or hate speech laws. So, many civil libertarians, people who are left and right, support the decision in the web case, it’s a close case. And many civil libertarians also support the decision that says that, in a democracy, important decisions about spending fortunes of money should be made by the legislature, not by the unelected executives. So, these are all close cases that many liberals agree with, and many Democrats agree with.”

He continued, “And it’s extremists, both on the court and off the court, that are screaming and yelling that somehow this ends democracy in America.” He added that “the color of a person’s skin, the accident of race should never be a factor. That’s the liberal perspective. That’s the constitutional perspective.”

 

 

Loading

80
Categories
Gun Control Racism The Courts

The face of a “White Supremacist” in Philly shooting (A follow-up)

Visits: 9

Remember how Twitterheads claimed that the Philly shootings were done by “White Supremacists?” Well, here one is:

The 40-year-old Kimbrady Carricker

The man accused in the fatal shooting spree in Philadelphia that left five people dead and four others wounded Monday night left a will at his house, and according to a roommate, had acted agitated and wore a tactical vest around his house in the days before the shooting, prosecutors said Wednesday.

In his first court hearing on Wednesday morning, 40-year-old Kimbrady Carriker was charged with 11 total offenses and several counts of each.

In addition to murder, Carriker is also facing charges of attempted murder, reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, and carrying a firearm without a valid permit.

He is being held without bail for the murders.

Sources say the suspect made disturbing social media posts before the gunfire. Sources say, Carriker, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, owned the ghost guns used in this mass shooting.

Prosecutors said they recovered a handgun, a will dated June 23, and other evidence during a search of the Carricker’s home. They declined to discuss details of the will or whether it gave any indication Carrick had been planning the attack between then and the shooting ten days later.

This is not the first time Carriker has had run-ins with the law. The suspect has misdemeanor drug and gun charges from 2003, which led to probation.

 

Loading

84

Categories
Corruption Crime Facebook Faked news Links from other news sources. Media Woke Reprints from others. Social Venues-Twitter The Courts The Law

DOJ files an appeal. Wishes to continue having Social Media block Conservatives.

Visits: 12

DOJ files an appeal. Wishes to continue having Social Media block Conservatives. It looks as if the DOJ is upset that the federal judge put a clamp on their ability to spread false information using Social Media. Well the judge had good reason to do this.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre lashed out at the Trump judge for granting a preliminary injunction, blocking the federal government from censoring conservatives online.

The State Department canceled its future meetings with Facebook just one day after US District Court Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee who still honors the US Constitution, accused the Biden Regime of violating the First Amendment by censoring unfavorable views in a blistering 155-page opinion.

So let’s see if it comes out that the government had other secret meetings with other Social Media Venues.

 

 

Loading

133
Categories
Links from other news sources. Public Service Announcement Reprints from others. The Courts

Winning at the 9th. James O’Keefe Wins HUGE Lawsuit in Oregon: Court Rules Anti-Recording Law Unconstitutional

Visits: 18

Winning at the 9th. James O’Keefe Wins HUGE Lawsuit in Oregon: Court Rules Anti-Recording Law Unconstitutional. This article was originally posted at the GP.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the law that prohibits recording in the state of Oregon. James O’Keefe and Project Veritas filed the lawsuit in Portland, Oregon back in 2020.

In Project Veritas vs Schmidt, the organization argued it had a right to engage in undercover journalism and record people without their consent. “WON in Ninth Circuit – Federal Appeals Court STRIKES DOWN Oregon criminal recording law” James O’Keefe said boasting about his win.

“It violates the 1st amendment right to free speech, INVALID ON ITS FACE” – the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling.

“Oregon Revised Statute 165.540(1)(c). This law prohibited anyone from making an audio recording unless that person “specifically informed” others they were recording. But the law also included special permissions from the government to allow for non-notified recording of the police, but not any other government employee,” O’Keefe said.

“That just leaves the government putting its thumb on the lens of newsgathering, deciding which news is easiest to get and skewing reporting. Like the Ninth Circuit has explained before, whatever concerns Oregon has over shoddy reporting or “fake news,” the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true and not the suppression of speech.” O’Keefe added.

Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta out of the 9th circuit in Pasadena, California authored the opinion. Ikuta wrote, “Oregon does not have a compelling interest in protecting individuals’ conversational privacy from other individuals’ protected speech in places open to the public, even if that protected speech consists of creating audio or visual recordings of other people.”

 

 

 

Loading

94

Verified by MonsterInsights