Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Crime The Law

Judicial Watch Statement on Special Counsel to Investigate Bidens: Follow up to previous articles

Visits: 20

(Washington, DC)Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the appointment of U.S. Attorney David Weiss as special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Biden family finances:

Attorney General Garland folded today, stopped ignoring DOJ regulations, and finally appointed a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden and (indirectly) President Joe Biden for their corrupt family business dealings.

But appointing U.S. Attorney Weiss as special counsel, a man who tried to unethically slide Hunter’s corrupt plea deal past a federal judge is a sick joke. In fact, Mr. Weiss should be under investigation for his dishonest statements to Congress and his compromised, sweetheart plea deal for Hunter Biden.

Given the powerful and unrefuted testimony before Congress by senior IRS investigators that the criminal investigation of Hunter was obstructed by the Justice Department (when Weiss was nominally running the investigation) in order to protect Joe Biden, Weiss is the last person who should be special counsel.

Congress should speed up and escalate its investigations of Biden’s corruption, as the Justice Department is ethically broken.

In the meantime, Judicial Watch will continue its leadership role in investigating and exposing the worsening Biden corruption crisis through numerous FOIA and other federal and state legal actions.


Think about it. Weiss OBSTRUCTED the IRS criminal investigation to protect the Bidens. And now he’s the Special Council??? — TPR

 

Loading

167
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.

Visits: 17

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.

Loading

413
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.

Visits: 35

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)

 

Loading

217
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

204
Categories
Biden Cartel Crime Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Social Venues-Twitter The Law

Rep. Jim Jordan: Facebook Docs Tie WH to Censorship.

Visits: 9

Rep. Jim Jordan: Facebook Docs Tie WH to Censorship.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, released a Twitter Files-like thread Thursday, where he revealed what he called a Facebook censorship operation by President Joe Biden’s White House.

Jordan’s “Facebook Files Part 1” alleged the White House and administration officials pressured Facebook to censor Americans with “unconstitutional” force, including work to block “a meme” about vaccination, and a Tucker Carlson video.

There are so many more tweets to this travesty.

Loading

133
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

103
Categories
Corruption How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Racism Racism. The Law

Dem-Backed Bill Would Force Judges to Consider Race in Sentencing

Visits: 31

Dem-Backed Bill Would Force Judges to Consider Race in Sentencing

California lawmakers consider a bill that would require judges to consider a person’s race when deciding how long to sentence them to prison.

The bill, which was introduced in February by Democratic Assembly taxpaying citMember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, was approved by the state Assembly in May and is currently being debated in the state Senate, according to Fox News.

If the Dems didn’t have double standards, they would have none at all.

Assembly Bill 852 would add a section to the California Penal Code requiring courts, when they have the power to decide a prison sentence, to take into account how racial minorities have been affected differently than others in order to “rectify racial bias.”

“It is the intent of the Legislature to rectify the racial bias that has historically permeated our criminal justice system as documented by the California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans,” the proposed section reads.

“Whenever the court has discretion to determine the appropriate sentence according to relevant statutes and the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council, the court presiding over a criminal matter shall consider the disparate impact on historically disenfranchised and system-impacted populations.”

The task force, which was created from legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2020, published its recommendations in June, Fox News reported. The state legislature will debate whether to implement them.

Jones-Sawyer is a member of the reparations task force, according to NBC News.

Eligible black California residents could receive more than $115,000, or roughly $2,352 per year of residency from 1971 to 2020, in compensation for excessive policing and felony drug arrests, as well as disproportionate incarceration during the alleged war on drugs, Fox News reported.

Jones-Sawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Wow. Give criminals money for being caught. What a novel concept!

Isn’t giving someone preferential treatment because of their skin color RACIST????

Answer: YES! (Unless the parties enjoying the preference are non-White, of course.)

Loading

103

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

DOJ Announces Indictment Against Biden Whistleblower. Are You Surprised?

Visits: 13

DOJ Announces Indictment Against Biden Whistleblower.
Published on By Citizen Frank

Dr. Gal Luft

Israeli professor Dr. Gal Luft, a key Biden whistleblower who was “missing” for several weeks, has been indicted by the Department of Justice just days after releasing a video in which he accused the Biden family of accepting bribes and assisting the Chinese government.

Luft has been accused of failing to register as a foreign agent while working to advance the interests of China in the United States. In addition to Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the eight-count federal indictment includes charges of arms trafficking, Iranian sanctions violations, and making false statements to federal agents.

“As alleged, Gal Luft, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen and co-head of a Maryland think tank, engaged in multiple, serious criminal schemes. He subverted foreign agent registration laws in the United States to seek to promote Chinese policies by acting through a former high-ranking U.S. Government official; he acted as a broker in deals for dangerous weapons and Iranian oil; and he told multiple lies about his crimes to law enforcement,” said U.S. Attorney Damian Williams.

More on the indictment from Fox News:

 The indictment also alleges the following:

First, LUFT conspired with others in an effort to act within the United States to advance the interests of the People’s Republic of China (“China”) as agents of China-based principals, without registering as foreign agents as required under U.S. law.

As part of this scheme, while serving as the co-director of a Maryland-based non-profit think tank, LUFT agreed to covertly recruit and pay, on behalf of principals based in China, a former high-ranking U.S. Government official (“Individual-1”), including in 2016 while the former official was an adviser to the then-President-elect, to publicly support certain policies with respect to China without LUFT or Individual-1 filing a registration statement as an agent of a foreign principal with the Attorney General of the United States, in violation of FARA.

Among other things, in the weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election, LUFT and a co-conspirator (“CC-1”), who is a Chinese national and worked for a Chinese nongovernmental organization affiliated with a Chinese energy company, created a written “dialogue” between CC-1 and Individual-1, in which LUFT wrote Individual-1’s responses and included information that was favorable to China.

The dialogue was then published in a Chinese newspaper online and sent to, among others, individuals in the United States, including a journalist and professors at multiple U.S. universities. When LUFT was writing the dialogue, CC-1 told LUFT that “[i]n these articles, we do not want to spill all the beans yet, just enough to let ‘people’ know he [i.e., Individual-1] is in the corridor of power to be. Just broad stroke policy consideration that leaves plenty of room for interpretation and imagination to be filled in later.”

After the purported “conversations” were published, LUFT told CC-1 that certain information, favorable to China, had been “tucked between the lines.” Shortly after the 2016 election, LUFT and CC-1 also discussed possible roles Individual-1 might have in the incoming U.S. administration and discussed Individual-1 taking a “silent trip” to China. LUFT responded that “[w]e are debating about his role in the new admin. There are all kinds of considerations . . .We should talk ftf [i.e., face-to-face] as there can be a supremely unique opportunity for china.”

Last week, Luft uploaded a video from an “undisclosed location” in which he claimed he was being detained in order to prevent his scheduled testimony before the House Oversight Committee. The professor asserts that the Biden family received payments from individuals with alleged ties to Chinese military intelligence, further alleging the existence of an FBI mole who leaked classified information to China-controlled energy company CEFC.

“I, who volunteered to inform the US government about a potential security breach and about compromising information about a man vying to be the next president, am now being hunted by the very same people who I informed — and may have to live on the run for the rest of my life on the run …,” Luft said.

“I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. I have no political motive or agenda … I did it out of deep concern that if the Bidens were to come to power, the country would be facing the same traumatic Russia collusion scandal — only this time with China. Sadly, because of the DOJ’s cover-up, this is exactly what happened,” he continued.

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) recently told Newsmax that Luft was in talks with the committee and would soon be testifying. Comer described Luft as “highly credible,” adding that, “this is a credible witness that the FBI flew all the way to Brussels to interview and sent several agents to interview. This is someone who knew about CEFC in detail long before the laptop ever became public.”


Gee, isn’t it strange how these charges all of a sudden appeared out of left field (pun intended)? An Israeli accused of broking deals with the Iranians — swore enemies of Israel? Really?????

 

Loading

73

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

78
Categories
Education Links from other news sources. The Law Transgender WOKE

Is it time to impeach this loon? NC Governor protecting the LBGQ Alphabet crowd. Not the children.

Visits: 8

Is it time to impeach this loon? NC Governor protecting the LBGQ Alphabet crowd. Not the children. Three laws vetoed by him. The governor was elected to work with the legislature.

North Carolina’s Democrat Governor Roy Cooper has vetoed three bills related to transgender issues, one banning sex changes for minors, another keeping biological males out of girls’ sports, and a third that would limit school instruction on gender ideology. Maybe it’s time for impeachment?

Now hopefully with super majority the legislature will override his veto. This isn’t the first time that good legislation has been passed and he’s vetoed it. So just maybe it’s time for a change in NC.

 

 

Loading

81

Verified by MonsterInsights