Category: The Courts

Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Fulton County Clerk on Leaked Trump Indictment- Yet Another “Explanation”

Well, it’s another day and we’re getting yet another explanation from Fulton Country officials when it comes to the posted-then-deleted document that appeared to be the indictment against former President Donald Trump — and it might be the wildest one yet.

As Townhall reported previously, a document that showed a number of charges under Trump’s name appeared on the Fulton County clerk’s website on Monday around noon, but was quickly removed. Later that night, when the grand jury voted on the indictment, it turned out that Trump was charged with exactly the same counts as had appeared on the clerk’s website hours before the grand jury had completed its work. County officials called the deleted document “fictitious” initially on Monday, then changed tact on Tuesday to say it was the result of a “trial run” used to “test” the system of posting indictments in anticipation of the grand jury’s vote.

At no time, however, amid the changing stories, have Fulton County officials explained why the document posted initially was an exact match for the charges the grand jury actually handed up hours later.

On Wednesday, we got another story — this time directly from Fulton County Clerk Ché Alexander — that added more information but did little to clear up the situation.

Here’s what she had to say when she broke her silence in an interview with Atlanta ABC affiliate WSB-TV:

She says she was under a lot of pressure to make sure the process went smoothly. In trying to be perfect she says she made a mistake.

She says she hit send instead of hitting save. “I am human,” she said. And she says she wanted to get the documents to the public as soon as possible.

“And that’s how the mishap happened.”

Alexander said this had nothing to do with the D.A.’s office and there was nothing sinister about the mistake she made.

“I have no dog in the fight,” she pointed out.

She says in an effort to handle the indictment perfectly, she messed up. “I did a work sample in the system. And when I hit save, it went to the press queue.”

Some news reporters saw it before it was deleted. At least one outlet published it.

Alexander says what was published was unofficial. “It wasn’t an official document. It wasn’t official charges. It was the dry run. It was a work sample,” she said.

Even though it had a case number. But Alexander says it didn’t have a stamp or other markings that would have made it official.

Jones asked her why did she release a statement calling the document “fictitious.”

“That was the best word that I could come up with. It was fictitious. It wasn’t real. It didn’t have a stamp on it,” she stated.

Jones asked her why she didn’t just say it was an error. Alexander says the word ‘fictitious’ is what her team came up with…

Alexander says she was under a lot of worldwide pressure to get this right. Now she says she just wants to explain what happened and get back to work. “I tell my staff we just want to be transparent. I don’t have anything to hide,” Alexander said.

Alexander says her mistake had no impact on the grand jury and its decision.

Yep, the latest version of events is that the clerk “hit send instead of save.” Notably, there’s still no explanation for how the test run which went awry happened to include the exact counts on which Trump was later indicted by the grand jury, but with any luck there will be yet another explanation or statement from the clerk’s office yet to be released in the days ahead.

Sorry, (Ms) Charley, but your “explanation” won’t wash. As the owner of several websites across different hosts, I can tell you that the “Save” and “Send” (or “Publish”) are NOT next to each other.

“under a lot of worldwide pressure to get this right.”

WORLDWIDE pressure???????? Who the @$#%$! does she think she’s fooling? Oh, right. Leftist drones accept anything — no matter how outrageous — as long as it comes from an approved source –TPR

Categories
Corruption Crime Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Federal Court: D.C. ‘Selectively’ Enforced Law to Arrest Pro-Lifers but Not BLM Protesters.

DC allows the criminals to walk.Robert Nickelsberg, David Ryder/Getty Images

Federal Court: D.C. ‘Selectively’ Enforced Law to Arrest Pro-Lifers but Not BLM Protesters.

A federal appeals court delivered a major free speech victory on Tuesday, ruling that Washington, D.C., officials “selectively” enforced a statute to arrest pro-life activists but not Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020.

In the summer of 2020, thousands of Black Lives Matter protesters flooded D.C., and over several weeks, they covered the streets, sidewalks, and storefronts with paint and chalk. While these markings violated the District’s defacement ordinance, no protesters were arrested. However, district police officers were quick to arrest two pro-life advocates in a smaller protest for chalking “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a public sidewalk outside of a D.C. Planned Parenthood facility.

WATCH: Pro-Lifers Arrested Outside D.C. Planned Parenthood for Sidewalk Chalking “Black Preborn Lives Matter”

Matt Perdie / Breitbart News

“The government may not enforce the laws in a manner that picks winners and losers in public debates,” reads the D.C. Circuit opinion penned by Judge Neomi Rao, reversing a lower court’s decision. “It would undermine the First Amendment’s protections for free speech if the government could enact a content-neutral law and then discriminate against disfavored viewpoints under the cover of prosecutorial discretion.”

“The First Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of viewpoint irrespective of the government’s motive,” the three-judge panel ruled:

We hold the Foundation has plausibly alleged the District discriminated on the basis of viewpoint in the selective enforcement of its defacement ordinance. We therefore reverse the dismissal of the Foundation’s First Amendment claim and remand for further proceedings.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed the lawsuit on behalf of members of the Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America. The three-judge panel was comprised of circuit judges Robert Wilkins, Neomi Rao, and Michelle Childs.

ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, vice president of the ADF Center for Life and Regulatory Practice, who argued before the court on behalf of the pro-life organizations, said:

Washington officials can’t censor messages they disagree with. The right to free speech is for everyone, and we’re pleased the D.C. Circuit agreed that the Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life should be able to exercise their constitutionally protected freedom to peacefully share their views the same as anyone else.

Every American deserves for their voice to be heard as they engage in important cultural and political issues of the day.

Frederick Douglass Foundation Virginia Chapter President J.R. Gurley issued a statement praising the court’s decision.

“The city shouldn’t allow some groups to participate in the public forum and shun others from doing so just because city officials disagree with their viewpoint,” Gurley said. “The First Amendment protects our right to peacefully share our pro-life message in Washington, D.C. without fear of unjust government punishment and thankfully, the D.C. Circuit agreed.”

 

 

WATCH: D.C. Police Arrest Pro-Lifers for Chalking but Ignore BLM Spray-Painter

Matt Perdie / Breitbart News

Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins also celebrated the decision and noted that “free speech rights you’re afraid to use don’t really exist.”

“It’s very encouraging that there was a unanimous 3-0 decision in favor of the free speech rights of pro-life students, peacefully protesting in our nation’s capital,” Hawkins said, continuing:

Viewpoint discrimination is un-American, and, as the case proceeds, we look forward to learning more about how D.C. officials picked winners and losers in their enforcement. Free speech rights you’re afraid to use don’t really exist, and we will keep fighting for the rights of our students to stand up for the preborn and their mothers, and against the predatory abortion industry led by Planned Parenthood.

The case is Frederick Douglass Foundation v. District of Columbia, No. 21-7108, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Commentary Corruption Elections Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Abrams: Georgia case against Trump riddled with conflicts.

Good Bad, and the Ugly. David Walter Banks/The Washington Post/Brandon Bell/Getty Images

 

  • Abrams: Georgia case against Trump riddled with conflicts.
  • Former President Trump is facing 13 new charges in Georgia
  • The charges stem from alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election
  • Abrams: Fulton County DA Fani Willis has overtly politicized the case

Updated: 

(NewsNation) — Last week, I called for something which I knew was highly controversial. I said that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should drop her case against former President Donald Trump after federal officials indicted him for basically the same conduct. Not because she doesn’t have a case — Willis certainly has the legal ability and right to move forward — but I argued it simply wasn’t the right thing to do.

I stand by what I said now that Willis and her office have officially indicted Trump and 18 other codefendants in a 41-count indictment, 13 of which are against Trump himself. It’s a wide-ranging racketeering case alleging Trump and his allies conspired to reject the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

Now, my comments were never related to the others, just the former president. Let me be clear, this indictment reminds us of the absurd lengths that Trump and his team went to try to overturn the actual results of the election.

Trump, of course, denies the charges and has set his own news conference for next week. He says he will present “a large, complex, detailed but irrefutable report on the presidential election fraud which took place in Georgia” which he says will lead to a “complete exoneration” of him.

We shall see. But there are two main reasons that remain as to why Willis shouldn’t be doing this.

No. 1: The federal case makes the Georgia case against Trump duplicative and unnecessary. No. 2: Willis’ case is riddled with conflicts and political considerations that will be easy for the Trump team to exploit.

Willis bringing this case is just bad for everyone, and I mean everyone.

The more important issue is that the federal indictment makes Willis’ case unnecessary. It goes into depth on the Georgia allegations and both indictments highlight similar quotes.

Do we need another case brought on basically the same set of facts?

Jack Smith goes state by state in the federal indictment, very meticulously addressing conduct. So, now are prosecutors in other states going to bring cases against Trump, too? Now, that is different from charging the actual fake electors as Michigan and now Georgia have done.

The biggest argument I hear again and again is that if Trump is reelected, he couldn’t make state charges go away, only federal. That’s true, but that is not a reason for a prosecutor to act and there is no way the state trial is going to happen any time soon.

And if Trump wins the 2024 election, the U.S. Supreme Court barely let Bill Clinton get sued while in office; they will not let a state prosecutor try the sitting president of the United States in a criminal case.

That could be why Willis has pledged to do the impossible, which is to get this case to trial within the next six months. She currently has a gang-related RICO case that is still in its eighth month of jury selection.

But, even the DOJ itself has a policy seeking to limit multiple prosecutions. It says: “The purpose of this policy is to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s), to promote efficient utilization of department resources, and to promote coordination and cooperation between federal and state prosecutors.”

The reverse should be true, as well. But, it’s not just that. It’s also Willis’ conduct before Monday night.

She has given more than three dozen media interviews on the investigation. Even the judge overseeing the grand jury said she is “on national media almost nightly talking about the investigation.”

In many of those interviews, she repeatedly kept hinting at the outcome of the case. In the end, it was certainly not a question of if the indictment would come, but when.

Her explanations for why it’s taken two and a half years to get here have made little sense.

“The right to have your vote protected is a serious one and so, you know, I’ve told people many times I’m not going to be rushed. We are doing what is needed for justice,” Willis said in one interview.

That can’t be true. With the special counsel, the delay is more easily understood. Attorney General Merrick Garland likely wasn’t going to bring charges against Trump for trying to overturn the election. Even after the Jan. 6 committee’s criminal referrals, it sure didn’t seem the attorney general was going to act on it, much to the frustration of liberals.

Then, the documents case landed on his lap with the former president seemingly trying to prevent the DOJ from getting back highly sensitive government documents stored at Mar-A-Lago.. At that point, Garland apparently feels he has to deal with it and eventually he appoints a special counsel who then essentially takes it where he wants. That explains that delay.

Jack Smith has only been investigating since November of last year, but what could possibly have taken Willis this long? It took her a year to even request a special purpose grand jury. Why? And that “special purpose” grand jury was just advisory. They heard evidence for eight months and then clearly recommended indictments in February. We know that because the foreperson, just like Willis, sort of hinted at it in an interview.

“We definitely heard a lot about former President Trump and we definitely discussed him a lot in the room. And I’ll say that when this list comes out, there are no major plot twists waiting for you,” the foreperson said.

It all felt like a game. Meanwhile, Willis has also regularly appeared to express her own personal opinions that what Trump did was illegal. After all, the key legal question is: Did he have corrupt intent?

Willis has long made it clear that in Trump’s call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, where he asked the secretary of state to “find” 11,780 votes, that he had that corrupt intent, even before the indictment ever came down.

“You look at facts to see did they really have intent? Did they know what they were doing? Detailed facts become important, like asking for a specific number and going back and investigating and understanding that number is one more than the number that is needed. It lets you know someone had a clear mind that they knew what they were doing,” Willis said in a 2021 interview.

So, if you know that, why has it taken two and a half years? Yes, the RICO case she’s now charging is sweeping and has moving parts that took time. But it still just feels like she has been milking this.

That’s not all. She has also overtly politicized it. Last July, less than two weeks after Willis subpoenaed South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, she used her campaign Twitter account to tweet out a cartoon.

The cartoon showed her fishing Graham out of a swamp with what appears to be a depiction of Trump saying: “I know you’ll do the right thing for the swamp, Lindsey.” All the while, her campaign was using the account to solicit donations.

Can you imagine if that was a Republican prosecutor seemingly exploiting the subpoena of a progressive liberal Democrat to solicit campaign donations? There would be no end to the mainstream media’s hysteria.

But this wasn’t the only time Willis and her surrogates referenced the Trump investigation to solicit followers, tweets and donations for her campaign. And that doesn’t even address the actual documented conflict of interest she had.

Willis subpoenaed alleged fake elector Burt Jones, a Republican state senator who at the time of the subpoena was running for lieutenant governor. Willis then hosted a fundraiser for Jones’ political opponent.

Jones went on to win the election, but Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney could not believe the actions of Willis. In a hearing, he called what she did a “what are you thinking?” moment.

Look, Willis is too far in politically to let this go. I understand that. I also get the arguments about accountability, pardons and state vs. federal cases.

But, I think the right thing to do would have been to let the feds handle a case that is about conduct by the president of the United States while he was president.

And to those who desperately want to see Trump locked up and believe that any prosecution of him is a noble one, well you may come to regret this case. Already Monday, there was the release of what appeared to be a draft indictment of Trump hours before the official indictment was handed up.

The DA’s office called the document “fictitious” but in fact, the charges listed on it turned out to be identical to the final indictment. They weren’t the final charges, but it was a huge blunder and one Willis wasn’t even willing to address.

“No, I can’t tell you anything about what you refer to. What I can tell you is that we had a grand jury here in Fulton County. They deliberated until almost 8 o’clock, if not right after 8 o’clock. An indictment was returned and it was true billed. And you now have an indictment. I am not an expert on clerk’s duties or even administrative duties so I wouldn’t know how to work that system and so I’m not going to speculate,” Willis said.

Except, it immediately gave the Trump team a legitimate argument. I am betting this case will end up giving Trump and his supporters many more legitimate arguments to make about the unfairness the prosecutor and the process.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not of NewsNation.

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach History Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Democrats Denied Election Results 150+ Times Before Trump Was Indicted for Challenging Election.

Hillary going down. Rick T. Wilking/Pool via AP

Democrats Denied Election Results 150+ Times Before Trump Was Indicted for Challenging Election.

Although a Georgia grand jury indicted former President Donald Trump on Monday for challenging the 2020 election result, Democrats have refused to accept the results of elections they lost for decades.

As Breitbart News reported, more than 150 examples show Democrats denying election results, including President Joe Biden; two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton; House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY); Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX); and failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.

In fact, every single Democrat president since 1977 has questioned the legitimacy of U.S. elections, according to the Republican National Committee. In both 2013 and 2016, Biden claimed that Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election. In May 2019, Biden said he “absolutely agrees” that Trump was an “illegitimate president.” Biden cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2022 midterms this year.

In 2006, then-DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated that he was “not confident that the [2004] election in Ohio was fairly decided.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said it is “appropriate” to have a debate concerning the 2004 election and claimed that there were “legitimate concerns” regarding the “integrity” of U.S. elections. Then-Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) cast doubt on the security of electronic voting machines in the 2004 election, saying he was “worried” that some machines do not have a paper trail.

 

 

Democrats also cast doubt on the 2016 election. Seven House Democrats tried to object to the 2016 election electoral votes. After President Trump’s victory in 2016, 67 Democrats boycotted his inauguration, with some claiming Trump’s victory was not legitimate.

In September 2017, Hillary Clinton said she would not “rule out” questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election. In October 2020, she added that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying, “We still don’t really know what happened.”

In addition, Democrats supported Stacey Abrams in her stolen election claims. Hillary Clinton said Stacey Abrams “would have won” Georgia’s gubernatorial race “if she had a fair election” and that Stacey Abrams “should be governor” but was “deprived of the votes [she] otherwise would have gotten.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said, “I think that Stacey Abrams’s election is being stolen from her.” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) contended that “if Stacey Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, “the evidence seems to suggest” the race was stolen from Stacey Abrams.

“We won,” Abrams falsely claimed about the 2018 election. “I didn’t lose; we got the votes,” and “we were robbed of an election.” She also called it a “stolen election” multiple times and argued, “It was not a free and fair election.”

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

Some of the charges and you be the judge.

Bring it on. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Some of the charges and you be the judge. Well just like Trump predicted, number four went down last night. Same as the other three. Hearsay and 1st amendment violations. Breitbart had this.

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is among those in the group of co-defendants in the late night indictment, bizarrely, for simply asking for a phone number.

Per the indictment:

On or about the 21st day of November 2020, MARK RANDALL MEADOWS sent a text message to United States Representative Scott Perry from Pennsylvania and stated, “Can you send me the number for the speaker and the leader of PA Legislature. POTUS wants to chat with them.” This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Other actions taken by co-defendants and Trump were considered “overt act[s] in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Such actions include Trump tweeting about election integrity hearings. In one tweet, for instance, Trump said, “Georgia hearings now on @OANN. Amazing!’” According to the indictment, “this was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” It categorized similar tweets that way as well, as Trump encouraged people to watch public hearings about the allegations of voting irregularities:

On or about the 30th day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, “Hearings from Atlanta on the Georgia Election overturn now being broadcast. Check it out. @OANN @newsmax and many more. @BrianKempGA should resign from office. He is an obstructionist who refuses to admit that we won Georgia, BIG! Also won the other Swing States.” This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

…

On or about the 30th day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, “Hearings from Atlanta on the Georgia Election overturn now being broadcast LIVE via @RSBNetwork! https://t.co/ogBvaKfqG.” This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Trump’s lawyers responded to the indictment early Tuesday morning, deeming it “undoubtedly just as flawed and unconstitutional as this entire process has been.”

“So, the Witch Hunt continues! 19 people Indicated [sic] tonight, including the former President of the United States, me, by an out of control and very corrupt District Attorney who campaigned and raised money on, ‘I will get Trump,’” Trump said of the indictment on Truth Social.

“And what about those Indictment Documents put out today, long before the Grand Jury even voted, and then quickly withdrawn? Sounds Rigged to me!” he exclaimed, inquiring why he was not indicted two and a half years ago.

“Because they wanted to do it right in the middle of my political campaign. Witch Hunt!” he exclaimed.

Republican allies have also jumped to Trump’s defense.

“Same playbook. New partisan DA trying to make a name for themselves,” Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) remarked.

“Another sham indictment of Trump timed to do maximum damage in the 2024 election—this time with the indictment posted before the grand jury even voted—is no coincidence,” he added. “Americans see through this witch hunt.”

“Justice should be blind, but Biden has weaponized government against his leading political opponent to interfere in the 2024 election,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said.

“Now a radical DA in Georgia is following Biden’s lead by attacking President Trump and using it to fundraise her political career,” he added. “Americans see through this desperate sham.”

Just another day of fear from the left. I guess Trump will address this next week in a live news conference. Should be very interesting. NewsMax I’m sure will carry it live. So how many more points will Trumps popularity grow? This just causes Trump to be more outspoken and vocal.

Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Crime Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Hunter Biden special counsel may have found a ‘smoking gun’: Alan Dershowitz.

Gathering of the Biden Cartel. FOX.

Hunter Biden special counsel may have found a ‘smoking gun’: Alan Dershowitz.

By Charles Creitz | Fox News

After U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware David Weiss was named special counsel in the Hunter Biden investigation, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Fox News the change-in-venue from Delaware to Los Angeles may be more important than it seems.

Attorney General Merrick Garland named Weiss, a Trump appointee held over by President Biden to eschew concerns of conflict-of-interest, special counsel in the first son’s case last week.

Dershowitz noted the announcement was accompanied by a change-in-venue from the District of Delaware to the Central District of California, where Hunter Biden lives when he is not at his father’s home in Greenville, Del.

“”This is possibly a big deal. It’s not just a technical change because they’ve dropped the current indictment, and they’ve vitiated the plea bargain, which I predicted they would,” Dershowitz said Sunday on “Life, Liberty & Levin” of the appointment of Weiss as special counsel.

DEAR DEVON: JORDAN SAYS BOMBSHELL LETTER FROM BIDEN TO ARCHER PROVES CONNECTIONS TO HUNTER

President Joe Biden and family

President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden joined by Hunter Biden and Ashley Biden. (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

“I said right from the beginning, this plea bargain is not going to last. And now they’re moving the case to the Central District of California. That means that the special counsel probably found something: maybe a smoking gun, maybe just a gun.”

Dershowitz told “Life, Liberty & Levin” there had to have been some new information or determination in the case that led it to be moved across the country.

Host Mark Levin further noted however, that it is unusual and potentially legally murky to allow Weiss to continue serving as a federal prosecutor while also being named special counsel.

“People have said that now they can use this to prevent [Kentucky Rep. James] Comer from conducting his investigation,” he said, “Under the government rules you’re not allowed to be both, but government rules are out the window these days.”

MCCARTHY: IF HUNTER IS A FOREIGN POLICY EXPERT, WHY AREN’T NATO NATIONS CALLING HIM; ONLY UKRAINE, CHINA

David Weiss

Special Counsel David Weiss (Fox News screenshot)

Levin argued neither Garland nor Weiss should be able to use the new special counsel assignment as a basis to substantively change Congress’ oversight ability.

In a recent Fox News Opinion column, legal analyst Gregg Jarrett cited federal regulation 28 CFR 600.3, which states a special counsel shall be selected from outside the United States government. Jarrett argued in the column that Weiss’ new appointment is therefore a “farce.”

Recent special counsels and independent counsels have indeed come from outside government, as Robert Hur, the prosecutor investigating President Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, hasn’t been the U.S. attorney in Baltimore since 2021, John Durham and Robert Mueller – of the Russia probes – were no longer Connecticut’s U.S. attorney or FBI director, respectively, and about a year had lapsed between Ken Starr’s stint as U.S. solicitor general and Whitewater-Lewinsky independent counsel.

Dershowitz further said the change in Hunter Biden’s case is a constitutional issue that rightly concerns separation of powers and governmental checks-and-balances, especially pertaining to whether Congress can continue to have the same high level of oversight if Hunter Biden is now subject to special counsel investigation.

He said the fact the feds say they are conducting an investigation is notable, but not “determinative” as to Congress’ prescribed abilities.

 

The appointment of David Weiss as special counsel was a joke: Rep. James ComerVideo

“Congress can demand issue subpoenas, hold people in contempt. If they refuse to answer, then the courts will have to decide,” he said.

In a statement following Weiss’ new appointment, Comer accused Garland of committing another “attempt [at] a Biden family coverup in light of the House Oversight Committee’s mounting evidence of President Joe Biden’s role in his family’s schemes selling ‘the brand’ for millions of dollars to foreign nationals.”

Former President Donald Trump, himself under special counsel investigations overseen by former Obama Justice Department Integrity Section chief Jack Smith, has pushed back on citations of Weiss as a “Trump appointee” – arguing the prosecutor can mostly thank the First State’s two Democratic senators for his job.

In July, Trump called Weiss a “coward” and “a smaller version of Bill Barr,” adding that Sens. Chris Coons and Tom Carper, D-Del., “got to choose and/or approve him.”

U.S. attorney nominations are by-law made by the president with the “advice and consent” of the U.S. Senate. Coons and Carper, through the blue-slip tradition, gave the Republican prosecutor their blessing.

Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Government Overreach Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law

Show them all. All the Trump circus shows should be televised.

America agrees. This is all political. GP Photo.

Show them all. All the Trump circus shows should be televised. Democrats in the House are calling for the trial about the much to do about nothing mostly peaceful gathering be televised.

I say televise them all. Let the American people see what kind of affirmative action judges and DA’S that are out there.

Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Crime Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts

Special Prosecutor Smith will do anything and everything to get a conviction.

James Trusty sounds off on Jack Smith's grand jury 'shenanigans' Former federal prosecutor James Trusty joins 'Life, Liberty & Levin' to dissect the new indictment against former President Trump. Fox Photo.

By Charles Creitz | Fox News

Special Prosecutor Smith will do anything and everything to get a conviction.

A former federal prosecutor called out a reported filing made by an attorney for former President Donald Trump’s valet – a co-defendant in the Mar-a-Lago special counsel case – and said the allegations amount to “extortion.”

James Trusty, a former chief of the Justice Department’s organized crime unit, said both Trump’s case and the state of allegations against the Biden family from whistleblowers “speak volumes” about the integrity of the current DOJ.

He referenced allegations against Assistant U.S. Attorney for Delaware Lesley Wolf that claim she warned Hunter Biden’s attorneys about potential scrutiny on a storage unit the first son used.

“In my book, that’s basically obstruction of justice,” Trusty said on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin” Sunday.

Walt Nauta plays golf with Trump

Waltine Nauta, left, takes a phone from Former President Donald Trump at a golf event in Virginia. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

But, Trusty added that a recent wrinkle in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into alleged mishandling of classified information at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago compound in Palm Beach may be similarly alarming.

“You had a high-level DOJ official — according to a statement submitted as an officer-to-the-court, to a federal judge — told Stanley Woodward, a defense attorney representing Walt Nauta that it would be a shame, essentially, if he endangered his pending judgeship by not flipping Nauta against President Trump,” Trusty said.

The incident, first reported in the UK Guardian, claimed federal prosecutor Jay Bratt – head of the counterintelligence and export-control section of the DOJ’s National Security Division – brought up the fact that Woodward filed an application to be considered for a federal judge opening.

Nauta and attorney outside Miami court

Waltine Nauta along with defense attorney Stanley Woodward. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)

Woodward appeared before prosecutors in Washington in November 2022, according to the Guardian, over a matter they did not want to talk about by phone. The paper characterized the exchange as one in which Bratt suggested Woodward’s endeavor for a judgeship would be viewed in a more positive light if his client cooperated against his boss — the former president.

“Again, it’s extortion,” Trusty told host Mark Levin.

“So the people that we are entrusting in our criminal justice system to fairly and impartially and transparently pursue justice are actually obstructionists because they’re so hellbent on going after one target: President Trump.”

Trusty said the reported incident involving Woodward and Bratt is the latest example of continued suggestions the Biden DOJ has “no compunction about breaking the rules” or flouting rule-of-law for political ends.

Trusty added that there are other “shenanigans” afoot in Smith’s use of a grand jury regarding Trump, characterizing the classified documents case as one that began with a presiding judge in Washington, but continued with an indictment lodged in Miami.

“You don’t do a grand jury investigation for a year only to move it to another district unless there’s more to the story,” he said.

Levin noted that the grand jury in Washington would be witnessing evidence and occurrences that would naturally remain unbeknownst to a Florida grand jury, thereby muddying the case.

“Past people I have talked to that have faced this man, Smith, say that’s exactly what he does,” Levin said.

Jack Smith closeup

US prosecutor John L. “Jack” Smith presides during the presentation of the former Kosovar president Hashim Thaci before a war crimes court in The Hague, Holland. (JERRY LAMPEN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

“He pierces attorney-client privilege by-hook-or-by-crook, gets it in front of the grand jury. It’s used in front of the grand jury. And now in this case, he’s moved it to another grand jury. And so the grand jury in Florida and the judge in Florida don’t know anything about it unless Trump’s lawyers are good enough to raise it with them.”

Trusty, who at one point was part of Trump’s Washington-based legal contingent but withdrew in June, said he hopes the former president’s current counsel does bring the discrepancies before Judges Tanya Chutkan – the Obama appointee in Washington – or Aileen Cannon – the Trump appointee in Miami.

Of the Bratt-Woodward report, Fox News contributor and George Washington University Law Prof. Jonathan Turley also opined, saying in a June “Hill” column the indictment against Nauta, a Guam native, is “clearly designed to concentrate [his] mind on cooperation.”

“If he were to flip… Trump would face a potentially insurmountable case,” Turley wrote in the column.

Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Crime How funny is this? Just my own thoughts Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics The Courts

Quick hide your children Progressives claim Trumps out to kill all who get in his way.

Oh if only he could tell the judge to go pound salt.

Quick hide your children Progressives claim Trumps out to kill all who get in his way. Former President Trump made a statement that.

“IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”  Well, the fanatics on the left are in fear. Some maybe even went into hiding. According to Jackie Boy the statement was a threat of violence against the witnesses and Smith and his crackerjack team.

The judge bought the lie and now wants a response from Trump as to what he meant. My first thought was to tell the judge to rotate on it. But seriously this will be a long string of complaints that will be filed.

Under the process known as discovery, prosecutors are required to provide defendants with the evidence against them so they can prepare their defense.

“It could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case,” prosecutors wrote in their filing, adding Trump has a history of attacking judges, attorneys and witnesses in other cases against him.

At his arraignment on Thursday, Trump swore not to intimidate witnesses or communicate with them without legal counsel present.

Protective orders are routine in cases involving confidential documents, but prosecutors said it was particularly important to restrict public dissemination given Trump’s social media statements.

A Trump spokesperson issued a statement defending the former president’s social media post.

“The Truth post cited is the definition of political speech, and was in response to the Rino, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and super PAC’s,” the statement said.

 

 

Categories
Abortion rights? Emotional abuse How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Transgender WOKE

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South” Leftist publication whines.

This article comes from the “BuzzLoving.com” website and is written by a Trump-hating leftist calling itself “Milla” — you can see all 81 pages of articles it’s written by going HERE.

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South” – US Supreme Court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights.

–Original Article headline

Before I get into the article proper, let me state my personal opinion to the rainbow community at large.

You have the right to be whatever you chose to be. Just like I have the right to be myself. You DON’T have the right to demand that I think your way and kowtow to your fantasies on penalty of being beaten, killed or labeled a bigot, a Nazi, or any other derogatory term you come up with. I don’t have the right to sue you for being what you chose to be, but you don’t have the right to try to enforce your fantasies on me via a lawsuit, either. You respect me, I’ll respect you, even if we don’t agree on life choices. Simple. That’s the way a mature person behaves.
End of disclaimer.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an evangelical Christian web designer from Colorado who refused to work on invites for same-sex marriage, giving a significant blow to the rights of LGBTQ couples.

The Supreme Court cited free speech.

Evangelical Christian web designer Lorie Smith has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to decline to endorse messages she disagrees with, it has been decided. This one decision could cause other owners of similar creative businesses to evade penalties under laws in 29 states that defend the rights of the LGBTQ community. (Notice the defendant is a biological woman. –TPR)

The statement from the Justice

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place, where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” He added, “At the same time, this court has also recognized that no public accommodation law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this court has held public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.”

Shutterstock photo

Smith sued on hypothetical grounds.

Smith opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and sued the state in 2016 because she said she would like to accept customers planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples. She was never disciplined for declining a same-sex couple, and it’s unclear if she ever did. Instead, she sued on hypothetical grounds.

(THIS IS NOT “HYPOTHETICAL” Colorado anyone? And the author’s painfully obvious bias is on full display here. –TPR)

Smith celebrated, but many expressed worry and dread.

(How many is “many” there, cupcake? — TPR)

“This is a victory not just for me but for all of us; whether you share my beliefs or completely disagree with them, free speech is for everyone,” Smith told the press. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that this was a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities” and a type of “reactionary exclusion,” calling it “heartbreaking.”

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes.”

Former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman shared that this was a major blow to human rights, writing, “Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South & posit that the owners attest that they have sincere religious beliefs, reinforced by their pastor every Sunday, that Blacks are inferior and that serving them would force them to endorse a message they disagree with..” Litman added, “That’s where we are headed.”

(Oh oh, Not kowtowing is “racist” now, is it? *facepalm*– TPR)

“The opinion is out there like a loaded gun.”

The lawyer also clarified, “To be clear, I’m not saying that’s where we are headed, although to paraphrase Justice Jackson, the opinion is out there like a loaded gun for someone who wants to go that way. The point for today is just that the opinion doesn’t have a limiting principle that forecloses that result.”

(Bloviate much? Oh, I forgot, you’re not only a person with a law degree, but you’re also a bureaucrat. Silly me. –TPR)

Another important takeaway

Time wrote, “Put plainly: states can try to pass local anti-bigotry laws, but national religious liberties still supersede them.” The publication also connected how the ruling came a year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, and Court watchers predicted that things would only get worse for women as well as LGBTQ rights.

(“For women?” Really. Sorry, that just won’t wash. Maybe for those females who are still emotional babies, but not for anyone who accepts the responsibility for their own actions. –TPR)