Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted review of the presidential immunity question, but set an expedited schedule for the review of the question with oral argument scheduled for April. Former president Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that “Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up Presidential Immunity.” As I mentioned last night in the coverage, legal scholars are hardly doing a conga line in celebration. Indeed, this morning had the usual voices attacking the Court as “craven” and partisan for granting review in the case. Despite the Court (including three Trump appointees) repeatedly ruling against Trump and conservative causes in past cases, the same voices declared that the Court was a cabal of politically compromised lickspittles.
MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow was outraged on the air and denounced “the cravenness of the court.” She noted that the Court took a whole two weeks to consider the question, ignoring the usual schedule of months of such deliberation. She added:
“Obviously, pushing all of the cases that they can push to a point where Trump will be standing for election before any of us have heard the verdicts in any of those cases. Got it. It is the timing…This is BS, and you are doing this as a tactic to help for political friend, partisan patron. For you to say that this is something the court needs to decide because it is unclear in the law is fragrant bullpucky and they know it and don’t care that we know it. That is disturbing about the future legitimacy of the court.”
Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner dismissed the review as a political effort to do Trump “an enormous favor.” Kirschner also said that it was “clear” the court “sold American democracy down the river” to help Trump.
Mary Trump, the niece of the former president, declared that “the Supreme Court of the United States just reminded us with this corrupt decision that the insurrection did not fail–it never ended.”
In other words, the Supreme Court itself is now part of the “insurrection.” It is that easy. Once you start to remove people from the ballot by declaring a riot an insurrection, even courts become insurrectionists by allowing for a review of lower court rulings.
This is the type of rhetoric that enrage viewers, particularly when they hear no alternative views.
For years, liberal law professors and pundits have filled the media with dire predictions that the Supreme Court was about to carry out a long-planned “coup” and “power grab” — one even wrote that the court could be on the brink of establishing “one-party rule” in the United States. These commentators often ignore the countervailing cases where conservative justices voted against conservative causes and immediately return to these sensational claims whenever the Court is seen as a hinderance of their agenda, even in the simple act of granting review of a long-debated constitutional question.
Just in case you wanted to read this insurrectionist order, here it is:
The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot.
The case will be set for oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Tuesday, March 19, 2024. Respondent’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Monday, April 8, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, April 15, 2024.
There are a variety of reasons why the Court could have put this on the calendar for further argument. While I still believe that Trump will not be able to secure a majority on his sweeping immunity theory, some justices may be concerned over the D.C. Circuit opinion and the lack of clarity on when a president is protected for actions taken in office. It is possible to uphold the lower court in its outcome but change the rationale or analysis.
The Court has not been particularly eager to reenter this area of constitutional law, but it may now be prepared to lay down new precedent and bring greater clarity for future presidents.
Rachel, it’s a heavy burden being the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong.
Won’t it be fun when Rachel Madcow get arrested for un-american activities and the courts follow her rhetoric and deny her constitutional rights? Nah, but I can dream can’t I?
@TPV_John
The FBI is now acting in an official capacity as the “Bolshevik Cheka Secret Police” for the Biden Regime DOJ. 🚨🚨🚨
Its sole existence is to SILENCE & REMOVE political opposition to the Communist regime it protects.
SAME EXACT PLAYBOOK.
SAME THING IS NOW HAPPENING IN AMERICA.
If you look, there is a DIRECT contrast here to the way the FBI & DOJ has treated INNOCENT political dissidents.
Calling ALL MAGA “Extremists” etc. Just look at all of the J6 prisoners…They have been ripped from their families, and places of work in a total HUMILIATION, and thrown into GULAGs in DC for daring to protest, or stand against the Biden regime.
WITH. NO. DUE. PROCESS.
“The CHEKA (sometimes called VeCHEKA) was the much-feared Bolshevik secret police – though to most Russians the CHEKA was no secret. The CHEKA was formed in the wake of the October 1917 revolution, established as a small agency to investigate and deal with threats to the new regime.“
https://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/cheka/…
WE HAVE A BIG PROBLEM.
Journalist Steve Baker turned himself in to the FBI in Dallas.
They put him in handcuffs, a belly chain, and leg irons to appear in court for trumped up misdemeanor charges for reporting on J6. Steve Baker was getting too close to the truth. So Biden’s Stasi got him. Targeted him in order to shake him up and let him experience what happens in Biden’s America when your reporting gets too close to the truth which is of course off limits and restricted. You will not report truth when it implicated Chris Wray is a LIAR.
Defendants charged with felonies appeared in court with him — they were not subjected to the same extreme treatment – the accused felons had NO cuffs, NO belly chains, NO leg irons.
Welcome to the USSA.
Biden’s Banana Republic.
If you believe J6 defendants are being treated fairly, given due process, given fair trials, etc. YOU are not paying attention.
Biden’s carefully selected Special Counsel, Jack Smith is pivotal to this and many of the current column’s written regarding Trump and these charges. Of the tens of thousands of both current and former federal prosecutors to choose from in the USA, Biden (through Merrick Garland and his deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco) decided that Jack Smith was the federal prosecutor that best fit the established criteria for a Special Counsel.
A Special Counsel is supposed to be unarguably unbiased, impartial, with no obvious allegiances to either political parties or the Department of Justice, as well having an unsullied record in their performance as a federal prosecutor.
I will make two Dennis McIntyre type declarative statements regarding Jack Smith and the choice of Jack Smith above all others to be a Special Prosecutor serving all Americans:
1. There is not a worse candidate in America to fit the criteria of a trustworthy Special Counsel than Jack Smith. Out of the tens of thousands of potential candidates, he is the exact opposite of what a Special Counsel is supposed to be. Smith is capable of happily destroying innocent lives without blinking an eye to achieve a political conviction and has proven that before now.
2. Jack Smith is the very epitome of the Democratic Party devolving into the Soviet Democrats – using police state fascism to target and either cripple or take out those who pose a threat to their election and legislative agenda. Jack Smith is the brand when it comes to open in-your-face Soviet Democrat police state fascism.
3. If the “threat to Democracy” that Biden and the Soviet Democrats claim exists, there is no greater threat to that democracy in this country than the Soviet Democrats selected prosecutors like Jack Smith.
Since Obama’s first term, Jack Smith is the Soviet Democrat party’s equivalent of the Soviet Union’s Lavarentiy Beria assuring Stalin: “Show me your enemy and I’ll find you his crimes or create them”. In Jack Smith’s case, the biggest difference is that those Smith has targeted over the last 12 years didn’t ultimately get a bullet in the head in a dungeon as Beria’s victims did.
A bit of Jack Smith’s prior history while Soviet Democrats laud both his choice as the independent, impartial, unbiased Special Counsel and how he has operated since his appointment:
1. Jack Smith of the DoJ’s Public Integrity Branch knew of the ongoing malfeasance and misconduct by that section’s lawyers in the fraudulent corruption prosecution of Republican Senator Ted Stevens. From concealing evidence to witness and evidence tampering by that Branch’s federal prosecutors, the Stevens prosecution had it all (sound familiar to what is going on now with Trump and others?).
In 2012 – after Ted Stevens had to step down and a Democrat was appointed in his place – Obama quietly dropped the investigation and prosecution of Ted Stevens. Rather than firing those particular lawyers after Obama and Holder tasked him with cleaning up political hit jobs by that branch like that levied against Ted Stevens, Jack Smith not only didn’t fire them, but he promoted them and sent them to prosecute other politicians.
After Smith’s corrupt DoJ lawyers lost another original corruption trial overwhelmingly, Jack Smith simply appointed other lawyers to continue pursuing lawfare against his victims despite the fact he was told that he was not in compliance with the applicable U.S. Attorney’s Manual (again, sound familiar to what he’s doing now?). In doing so, he enlisted two well known virulent racists as his primary witnesses – a fact the trial judge took note of in the second acquittals:
The court finds that Beason and Lewis lack credibility for two reasons. First, their motive for cooperating with F.B.I. investigators was not to clean up corruption but to increase political fortunes by reducing African-American voter turnout. Second, they lack credibility because the record establishes their purposeful, racist intent… Beason’s and Lewis’s statements demonstrate a deep-seated racial animus and a desire to suppress black votes by manipulating what issues appeared on the 2010 ballot.
2. In Obama’s reelection campaign of 2012, Louis Lerner of the IRS targeted and shut down Republican get-out-the-vote groups for potential tax violations. Only Republicans, not a single similar Democrat group was targeted by Lerner. And who advised Louis Lerner she could shut down those groups to investigate them for tax fraud? Yep, over in Obama’s DoJ Public Integrity Branch was Jack Smith, advising her they could investigate those specific groups for tax fraud. Of all the Republican groups who had to shut down for Lerner’s “investigations”, not a single one was found to have committed fraud or to not be in compliance with federal regulations.
Ultimately – AFTER Obama/Biden won reelection – Obama’s DoJ admitted that federal agencies, including their prosecutor Jack Smith and Louis Lerner of the IRS, committed wrongdoing by targeting conservatives. Lerner apologized to the country from the witness stand while citing the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying and scurrying away into retirement with her pension. The DoJ levied no sanctions against Smith – he was busy with other prosecutions. The Republican groups Smith and Lerner targeted launched multiple lawsuits, resulting in taxpayers forking over tens of millions of dollars in punitive damages for violating their First Amendment rights.
3. What solidified Jack Smith’s reputation for Lavarentiy Beria style “show me the man and I’ll find you his crimes” political prosecutions was his indictment for public corruption of the Republican Obama feared most in his bid for reelection: Governor Bob McDonnell.
Jack Smith not only indicted McDonnell for public corruption, but his wife as well who was NOT in public service. McDonnell’s conviction on the charges Jack Smith brought came before SCOTUS. In a rare unanimous decision, SCOTUS didn’t merely refer the matter back to the original court for retrial with remedies – they threw Jack Smith’s indictments and convictions out, while excoriating Jack Smith’s malfeasance in rewriting existing law to suit his purposes. To wit:
But our concern is not with Government’s tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.
SCOTUS also singled out Smith for rebuke and warned that the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.
Remember that Ruth Bader Ginsberg and every other Democrat appointed Associate Justice on the bench signed off on that decision.
There’s lots of other, lesser background to Jack Smith as Special Counsel: his wife is a Democrat heavy and tight with Michelle Obama for one. And there’s more of that McDonnell style of investigation and indictment that Jack Smith has brought back to use on Trump.
I’m not sure why Professor Turley has not done at op-ed on just how qualified/unqualified Jack Smith is for being brought back a second time to take out another dangerous Republican candidate to a Democrat president’s reelection – this time as a prosecutor that supposedly meets the criteria for a Special Counsel.
Dennis McIntyre or any of our other resident Soviet Democrat police state fascists find any errors in this quick review of Jack Smith’s past?
Can any of them explain why Jack Smith does meet the qualifications expected of an independent, unbiased Special Counsel with a record beyond reproach?
Once no one stops the demoncrat rabid criminals, it’s too late. It’s way too late for bob and his wife.
Who cares what the pathetic scotus did since the crime boss is still at it, they failed.
I must have posted a reply to Bug and therefore was deleted. There was an important video that provides the names, departments and rationals behind much of what we discuss, so I will repeat my post that contains the link. This is important for people on both sides of the aisle and discusses things that pbinCA seems concerned about.
The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. “What I’m describing is military rule,” says Mike Benz. “It’s the inversion of democracy.”
Many names and motives are within this video.
https://tuckercarlson.com/uncensored-the-national-security-state-the-inversion-of-democracy/
Speaking of craven treasonous insurrectionists where is Barrack Obama? Barry had best be finding a new country to reside in without extradition as this chitshow all unfolds to its end. Afterall, what’s good for the goose is good for a Turkey!
In case anybody forgot”
Why Garland illegally appointed jack smith without advise and consent by the potus and senate
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2023/07/28/this-is-harassment-trump-speaks-out-following-latest-indictment-charges-n2626354
The foreign corruption and bribes of Jack Smith
The superb 151-page whistleblower complaint (attached) speaks for itself. Three allegations to take from it:
Jack Smith was the US prosecutor in the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where Jack Smith was a blackmailer.
Jack was sending henchmen to Eastern European to convey the following message to various parties (both innocent and perhaps not-so-innocent): We know that during the Yugoslavian Civil War you murdered some people, Jack Smith is going to indict you unless you put $X in a suitcase for me to carry back to Jack so your problems go away.
$X = from $400,000 to $9 million (bribes of $7 million and $9 million were paid through Bitcoin, not suitcases).
Jack sought a $100 million bribe from a head of state who refused payment and is now in prison.
We learned of these allegations because of a passel of European whistleblowers who ultimately wrote superbly detailed affidavits, provided texts and financial records, etc. Read the 151 pages with exhibits yourselves.
https://www.deepcapture.com/2023/12/extortionist-jack-smith-is-being-extorted-to-pursue-trump/
Jack Smith illegally appointed as special prosecutor, never advised by potus and confirmed by senate.
“President Reagan’s attorney general and two law professors who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia are challenging special counsel Jack Smith’s authority to prosecute former President Donald Trump, saying a private citizen can’t bring criminal charges.
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese and law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson said in a 25-page filing to the Supreme Court that Attorney General Merrick Garland had no constitutional or statuary authority to appoint Mr. Smith to conduct the high-level criminal investigation of Mr. Trump because he was a private citizen and not confirmed by the Senate. ”
The demoncrats always break the rules and the laws and it’s years until the system catches up to them. How can we get around things being fair they postulate – then they do their end run around the procedures and pretend it’s all great. Just like Biden openly saying it will be years until they stop my illegal EO’s.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jan/12/legal-scholars-say-special-counsel-jack-smith-wasn/
They had to appoint outside the system of advise and consent, in order to get a rabid lying freak on a criminal mission, an unfair political hack job that won’t be justice and will not have the potus and senate controls on it.
As is ALWAYS the case with the Leftist criminals and their Lefty supporters in the media and Hollywood, the Lest is PROJECTING their own criminality onto President Donald J. Trump. As Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis would have put it, in its malignant form, projection is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others, breeding misunderstanding and causing untold interpersonal damage.
In lay terms, the Left is merely accusingPresident Trump of criminal acts that they themselves WERE and ARE DOING. The Left manufactured the Russian Collusion Hoax, bringing together forces within the Democrat Party, the DOJ, the CIA, and the FBI (colelctively Deep State operatives) to carry out their criminal acts to overthrow President Trump AND democracy. And the Left criminals within the Deep State similarly LIED about the Hunter Biden laptop.
When President Trump becomes President, as he should have been in 2020, in a just America, I hope that he brings on a REAL Attorney General, not a coverup con-artist like Billy “Bagpipes” Barr, and that this genuine AG posecutes ALL of the scores of Deep State criminals infesting Government and destroying America from within.
Jack Smith, obviously illegally appointed. Another law broken by the craven demoncrats in a never done before fiasco.
“The amicus brief raises serious and fundamental issues of whether Garland had the constitutional and statutory authority to appoint Smith as special counsel in the first place. Jack Smith, a private citizen, was appointed as a special counsel by Garland to investigate whether anyone violated the law in “efforts to interfere in the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held” on Jan. 6, 2021. In August of 2023, a grand jury directed by Smith indicted Trump for conspiring to defraud the U.S., disenfranchising voters, and obstructing an official proceeding on Jan. 6.
>>> Don’t Let Guilty Pleas in Trump Indictment in Georgia Fool You
But Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson argue that Garland lacked the power to appoint Smith because the attorney general has no authority to appoint a “private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.”
First, they point out that there is no federal statute establishing an “Office of Special Counsel in DOJ.” Second, even if one ignores the absence of such a specific statute, there is also no statute authorizing the “Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel.”
The special counsel, they note, has more power that any of the 94 U.S. Attorneys who prosecute cases across the country. Their authority is limited to the jurisdictions in which they are appointed. Moreover, U.S. Attorneys are nominated by the president and have to be approved by the Senate under the Appointments Clause in Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution.
Yet Jack Smith has nationwide authority to pursue his prosecutions, and indeed has indicted Trump in two separate jurisdictions (D.C. and Florida), and was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This, according to the amicus brief, violates basic constitutional requirements. ”
It’s all criminal activity by the demoncrats.
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/was-it-legal-appoint-jack-smith-the-first-place
When the vote in Michigan was put to the test, it failed. The recount was entirely corrupted, and here’s some of the evidence.
https://rumble.com/v2779rc-complete-vindication-in-michigan-recount-corrupted-beyond-even-being-counta.html
The MSM, of course, won’t tell you any of this, they will simply declare it’s been checked and found to be correct and Trump is a liar.
This is how we get the elite screaming it’s all good, they live in a bubble of ignorance and lies.
So, the SCOTUS will announce their review of the Appellate Court decision in June. The DC trial can then get going around August, and conclude in October. The country needs this trial as a dose of disciplined, evidence-based, adversarial-challenged truth-telling — as an antidote to the constant barrage of tribal infowarfare that passes for “journalism” and the “court of public opinion”. The latter is a cesspool of deceits, cover-ups, paranoias, and truthiness-sounding narratives, or, “that which is in my interest (elites) for you to believe”. The infospace is undisciplined, unprincipled, and unreliable for electing leadership.
The People of this country who are doing their jobs, upholding their responsibilities, and rejecting zealotry-paranoia-populism-escapism need to pull together to put the political tribalist-zealots in their place….on the sidelines. It is our duty to abandon sensationalist-alarmist media (tho it’s entertaining), and only pay attention to reality that is NOT cherry-picked for our attentional circuits, but dispassionate and engaged analysis of our options and visions for the future….books and long-magazine articles.
The nation’s core of centrist, moderate citizenry is strong, and now must put unhinged fanatics and their media-exec amplifiers in the rearview mirror. Yes, it will be more boring, but sane and sustainable….think of your children and grandchildren.
pbinCA tried this one out:
“The DC trial can then get going around August, and conclude in October. The country needs this trial as a dose of disciplined, evidence-based, adversarial-challenged truth-telling”
You’re joking, right? Overwhelmingly Soviet Democrat populated and voting Washington DC is the very hallmark of what American justice is supposed to look like?
That’s an evidence based opinion that you’re floating here? Based on what evidence of fairness and impartiality?
The place where Mueller’s FBI inquisitor of Trump who fraudulently changed an exonerating document to say instead that Carter Page was a traitor helping Putin steal the election wasn’t even disbarred after being charged by Durham? Some house arrest and back to being a lawyer. Same DC trials where the other two engaged in the “Russia Dossier” fraud who repeatedly lied to FBI ended up in front of juries who refused to convict them – but those charged by Mueller for lying to the FBI got slammed with jail sentences?
The DC where the parade of Obama’s Attorney Generals, FBI Directors, Mueller and other agents repeatedly perjured themselves to FISA judges in DC to get fraudulent warrants to spy on Trump and others – and not a single one of them yet has been charged by those DC courts… much less had one of those evidence-based, adversarial-challenged truth-telling trials you’re speaking about. Now there’s objective impartial DC courts and the judges who sit there showing the American people how reliable they are!
Ever ask yourself why Obama took quick pains to quickly add additional seats to the DC court?
Anyone actually serious about desiring “disciplined, evidence-based, adversarial-challenged truth-telling” trials would never mention DC courts in the same breath. Or for that matter, most California courts. DC – particularly where anything having anything to do with politics or “social justice” is concerned, is where actual objective, impartial American justice died a long time ago.
So yes… think of your children and grandchildren while attempting to tell them The DC Trial Fairy Tale that you’ve presented here.
I’m trying to think of why you might not have thought to mention that this country also might need a dose of evidence based truth telling about Bribery Biden’s business that he’s been running out of the White House since the first day he went there as Obama’s Vice President. Rather than the ongoing DC based obstruction and coverup of that by DC based DoJ, FBI, and courts.
Isn’t it odd that all the people panting to have Obama and now Biden’s version of Lavarentiy Beria, Jack Smith, get Trump on trial in the name of justice for the American people are completely silent about the Biden’s being shielded from that court system for the last two elections and with that continuing. Clearly they only want that DC objective justice before the election only for Trump – none of the Bidens. Or Clinton before Biden. Or Eric Holder before Clinton.
Wow….you’ve never watched a trial?…never been in a courtroom?… or been brainwashed about what takes place there? Courts are one of the last paces where the standard is objective facts backed by evidence.
It’s not elites deciding the verdict, it’s average people like you and me who sit through hearing all the factual evidence, and hear out both adversarial lawyers on how to interpret it.
And you denigrate courts. You devalue the truth (that which stands up to intense scrutiny by doubters). You delegitimize courts. You discredit juries made up of Americans.
I ask, what means of solving conflicts would we as Americans have if people stop believing in this highly evolved yet imperfect system? You got something better?
People like Trump will come and go. But the American system of law is exceptional, and only a fool buys into Trump’s egotistical, self-centered belief that Courts are corrupt and shouldn’t be trusted. If he thought a Court were helping him, he’d be the biggest supporter of them. It’s that shallow, unprincipled. It’s pure solipsism….”what benefits me is good, and what vexes my opponents is good”. “The opposite is all bad”.
I realize that there’s a 2-tiered system of law enforcement with elites given special consideration, but let’s work to fix that, not stupidly toss out everything else that’s good and fair. And let’s try to be objective, and not pulled off center by infowarriors.
pbinCA now tried this one in defense of DC courts being impartial:
“Wow….you’ve never watched a trial?…never been in a courtroom?… or been brainwashed about what takes place there?”
The question is: I’m not brainwashed enough – or you so brainwashed that you truly don’t notice the obsessive and extreme two standards of justice dealt out in DC courtrooms that wouldn’t happen in Oklahoma, North Dakota, Idaho, Florida, Kansas, Montana, etc?
You’re questioning that I’m brainwashed – while you parrot and defend Commissar Pelosi’s Very Un-Select January 6th Commission claim “insurrection”? An insurrection the FBI determined never happened, and your police state fascist Soviet Democrat Special Counsel Jack Smith hasn’t charged anybody with. You claim you’re ignorant of that versus what January 6th claimed while they were hiding and editing other evidence at the same time?
And… Wow! You never noticed how DC courts let a parade of Obama Attorney Generals, FBI Directors, Mueller, his henchmen perjure themselves and utter false documents to those courts – and not a single one of those courts has brought those people back before their courts and convicted them of perjury and uttering false documents. While flexing and posing that this is normally how courts and prosecutors work all throughout America with everyday cops and everyday citizens. Reminder: even Bill Clinton’s hand picked hometown judge who he perjured himself to during his deposition at least hit him with civil penalties for perjury, while sparing him criminal penalties.
I did eight years as a cop; been in courtrooms a few times and given evidence about the same amount of times before judges. Now you get a chance to use your matching courtroom appearances and experience you implied you have to defend what looks like obvious gaslighting on your part.
Based on your inferred courtroom experience, assure everybody how average cops like I was could repeatedly perjure themselves and utter false documents to judges anywhere other than DC, and after serial felonies of perjury of that magnitude became documented fact and public knowledge, judges anywhere else would allow your average cop to get away with those felonies we committed before them.
It wouldn’t happen anywhere other than DC where law enforcement repeatedly and continually committing perjury of this magnitude would get a pass. That’s the same DC where people who are part of Trump politics get charged with lying, witnesses adverse to Biden get charged with lying – and lying Democrat Attorney Generals, FBI Directors, and FBI agents AREN’T charged with lying.
You’re either that ‘brainwashed’ thing you talk about if you believe that would happen in Oklahoma, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota – or you’re here to post as a sock puppet attempting to gaslight us.
And you denigrate courts. You devalue the truth (that which stands up to intense scrutiny by doubters).
They deserve it. And you Speaking Your Truth attempting to defend and normalize them instead of the real truth does not make Your Truth fact. Or make you believable as somebody who actually wants the exact same standards applied to all, whether everyday citizen or Obama Attorney General or FBI Director.
What’s your reason for claiming that corrupt DC courts who WILL NOT deal with Attorney Generals, FBI Directors, Mueller and his FBI police state fascists committing perjury and destroying peoples’ lives should be defended? Why they should not be condemned and denigrated as the exact opposite of the principle of equal justice for all? They are a shyte stain on the American principle of equal justice for all.
What you’re doing in their defense is just as corrupt as they are and should and will be denigrated as they are – it’s richly deserved.
You devalue the truth, not me, in your defense of the actions of the proven police state fascist, Jack Smith, being brought back again to go after Trump as a supposedly unbiased, impartial Special Counsel with no attachments to the DoJ or a political party. Ditto your advocacy for and defense of the politically corrupt DC courts.
Right out of the communist Saul Alinsky’s book ‘Rules for radicals’: accuse your opponent of what you yourself are doing so they have to defend against your accusation instead of you defending what you were actually doing.
With 30,000+ current or former federal prosecutors to chose from, you pimp for Jack Smith being chosen as Special Counsel – despite his history of following Lavarentiy Beria’s example of taking out Lenin’s political enemies with “Show me the man and I’ll find you his crime”. After what Jack Smith did to Bob McDonnell to take him out as the most dangerous Republican opponent to Obama/Biden’s re-election, after SCOTUS excoriated what he did to prosecute McDonnell, you’re eager to defend him being a legitimate Special Counsel meeting the requirements of that appointment.
At this point you could defend yourself by claiming you’re just as ignorant of Jack Smith’s prior history, the same as you’re apparently equally ignorant of how the DC courts are unique in letting the highest levels of law enforcement get away with repeated felony crimes of perjury and uttering false documents to the courts.
It’s not elites deciding the verdict, it’s average people like you and me who sit through hearing all the factual evidence
Let’s try this instead of that gaslighting deflection you attempted:
‘It’s DC’s obsessively politically biased judges and prosecutors, not average American judges and prosecutors, that will ignore the highest levels of DoJ bureaucrats and law enforcement repeatedly committing multiple felonies of perjury and uttering false documents to them. Not committing those felonies against just an average American – against a sitting American president to attempt to destroy his presidency. Obsessively biased judges and prosecutors allowing those felons to get away with repeated crimes of perjury and uttering false documents that destroyed the lives of completely innocent peoples i.e. Carter Page, an American veteran risking his life in Russia collecting intelligence for the CIA.
Those obsessively biased and corrupt judges and prosecutors ensure average people will NEVER be a jury hearing the trial of an Obama Attorney General or FBI Director or Robert Mueller who repeatedly perjured themselves to judges to get illegal counterespionage warrants that destroyed the lives of innocent men like Carter Page.
It’s prosecutors acting like political party hitmen brought in to take out a Democrat president’s most dangerous opponents to reelection – first Bob McDonnell and now Trump in this coming election. Same prosecutor in both cases, Jack Smith – who you have to be brainwashed to defend as meeting the requirements of Special Counsel: a record of unbiased, objective, and unaligned with the DoJ or any political party. These are not everyday prosecutors.’
And let’s try to be objective, and not pulled off center by infowarriors.
You are not objective and you’re pimping the infowarrior “insurrection”, so stop with the Saul Alinsky tactics.
Enough with the gaslighting “nothing out of the ordinary to see here” regarding Jack Smith and the prosecution of Trump while Biden is still getting another pass leading up to a fourth election.
In short, quit trying to throw BS in our faces while trying to assuring us it’s just pixie dust we’re seeing and smelling as what you’re throwing hits us in the face, not Soviet Democrat party bullshyte and deflections.
If a Republican administration and Republican DA’s were to weaponize the justice system and go after the Dem frontrunner with scores of charges based on dubious legal theories that had never previously been used, the DNC-paid anonymous trolls on this comment section would be singing a different tune.
If there’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden has committed crimes, I want him to be indicted too.
Signed,
A non-trolling, non-paid Anonymous Democrat
P.S. It’s odd that you assume people you disagree with are paid. Is this because *you* are paid to comment here? (I don’t assume that about you.)
A.N.D.
Classification of materials is a function of the executive branch.
Biden was not the president; Obama was in complete control of classified materials and was complicit when Biden absconded with portions of them.
See if you can assimilate the information provided in the Constitution.
You, the “government,” and the Deep Deep State don’t agree with the Constitution, but the Constitution vests the president exclusively with executive power.
In lay terms, the President may do whatever he wants with classified materials in the absence of perspective by a subsequent President, the “government,” the Deep Deep State et al.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THE POWER – UTTERLY, CATEGORICALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY
_________________________________________________________________
Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The President alone wields the executive branch power of classification, declassification, disposition, and archiving of materials.
The legislative branch has no legal basis to usurp any aspect, facet, or degree of the power of the executive branch; the legislative branch must amend the Constitution to be provided with any power of the executive branch.
No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch is constitutional.
No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch to classify, declassify, dispose of, and archive material is constitutional.
Another feckless Anonymous coward posted this:
“If there’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden has committed crimes, I want him to be indicted too.”
Question: why we would bother with an indictment or the trial if we already have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? Should be going to sentencing instead if that standard has already been met.
Normally in America, the prosecution provides the evidence, the defense challenges and refutes the evidence, and a jury of your peers decides whether or not you the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty.
You aren’t aware that’s how it’s supposed to work? Democrats were given a pass and allowed to skip civics in high school?
Oh wait… I see what you’re getting at! The Special Counsel who investigated Bribery Biden stealing classified documents from SKIFs both during his years as a senator and then as a vice president said Biden did commit crimes – but he would substitute his opinion for a jury’s decision and say that no reasonable jury would convict Biden. The variation of the Comey Clinton Get Out Of Jail Pass: “no reasonable prosecutor would indict her”.
Clever! Very clever!!!
It’s odd that you assume people you disagree with are paid. Is this because *you* are paid to comment here?
I post under the same username Every. Single. Time.
Here’s what’s truly odd: you feckless Soviet Democrat Anonymous cowards could do the same: pick a username and stick with it. All you would need to do is borrow a few inches of spine and a few feet of guts to do what most other people here who comment at length do.
So: do you prefer being a feckless Anonymous coward because you’re paid to post like you do here?
Like this little gem you just posted about evidence beyond a reasonable doubt being required about Biden before indictments can be filed and that evidence put before a jury to determine whether or not it proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nice try, Tovarisch “Nobody Is Above The Law”.
OldManFromKS,
Singing?
More like squealing.
So, Alexa just woke me up to put a few logs on the fire, and now, I can not go back to sleep. So here is a question. This website, or FB, or X, whatever, gets a new commenter/user/poster who identifies as BadBoy – straight from the hood. It is part of everyday hood vernacular to use the N word, mf’er, b—h, h0 etc. and to openly engage in violent and threatening language, without actually engaging in violence. And, to engage in far less than proper grammar – such as “I be” or “you be”, know I mean?
Does this website, for example, have the right to pull BadBoys comments containing such language? Suppose the answer is “No.” That this is commonly accepted language in some ethnic groups, and that it would be a form of colonization to try to make BadBoy speak differently. But what if BadBoy reveals himself to actually be a black lawyer, who simply speaks this way to “keep it real.” Or worse yet, BadBoy is actually a white guy in Texas, using a sock puppet to denigrate black people.
These are some theoretical questions I have. And I am sure that “moderators” actually do struggle with such issues. So, how does one handle it?
This website is privately run, and Turley has a legal right to remove whatever comments he wants. He’s banned a number of commenters.
This Site is a FORUM with a decorum found on the Masthead (very top of webpage)
under: Civility Rule [ https://jonathanturley.org/civility-rule/ ]
He clearly doesn’t enforce that civility rule.
You forgot to mention the white President of the United States telling me on sewer TV telling me that the biggest problem in the world today is “White Supremacy”.
He may be on to something. Just take a look at today’s black leaders. I don’t see many Martin Luther Kings out there.
This too will pass.
Court Has Been Trying To ‘Limit’ Delay Procedures
In recent years, the Roberts Court has shown greater and greater impatience with criminal defendants’ efforts to forestall punishment — even if the outcome would be cruel, needlessly painful or simply unjustified. The effect of this new hostility to delay is most sharply felt in the death penalty context. But a general hostility to foot-dragging in criminal cases is a through line in the court’s docket.
In fact, the court’s erstwhile concern with “unjustified delay” in criminal cases would seem to cut hard against hearing Trump’s case. It is, after all, a matter of common knowledge that the former president’s legal strategy is to run out the clock and thus prevent a trial prior to the election. Here then is a case where justice delayed may well be justice derailed.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/29/trump-special-treatment-supreme-court-00144138
……………………………
The United States cannot have a presidential election where one of the major candidates is facing a felonies in Federal Court. It’s a prescription for disaster! Especially if Trump wins another Electoral College-only victory.
If Trump prevails by Electoral College-only, then promptly instructs his DOJ to drop all Federal charges against him, the optics would be so disturbing, the country could come unglued.
What legitimacy would Trump have under circumstances like that? Electoral College-only, then immediate self-pardon?? This court is kidding itself if it thinks this country is up to such a challenge.
One should note that Richard Nixon lost all legitimacy after firing Watergate Special Counsel, Archibald Cox. Nixon was essentially a pariah after that. And Trump would be one too. Foreign leaders would see Trump as basically a rogue.
The United States cannot have a presidential election where one of the major candidates is facing a felonies in Federal Court. It’s a prescription for disaster! Especially if Trump wins another Electoral College-only victory.
Get over it.
President Trump is innocent of all chargers.
Face the Facts. Garland and Smith are terrible lawyers and bad at math. But their greatest downfall is living in their cloistered society and not understanding why Donald Trump is in the political arena.
Obama directed lawfare, assumed the mere charges would be enough to scuttle President Trumps campaign.
But the charges are so transparently election interference, swing voters have taken note, and are voting against the DC cabal.
If the charges had any merit, voters would abandon Trump. But voters are slowly understanding this is just another iteration of the Russia hoax. Daily phony stories attempting to derail a Presidential campaign.
Both Obama/Biden and Trump as Presidents acted in corrupt, self-serving ways. Why should we be force-choiced into either one? You’re stuck in a dichotomization trap. The danger of this approach is lowering of standards of public service. I just don’t understand the mentality that says, because Trump was mistreated by Obama-Brennan-Dems-media, he can abuse the powers of office and game the Constitution to fight back. Neither are acceptable behavior. Reject both.
Show me a viable, third party candidate with a real chance of winning, then I would.
Otherwise, this is what we have.
Pbinca, one cannot move from imperfection to perfection, though one can gradually expect more from our leaders. Can you name one leader in history that was perfect? As a lesson, we can turn to King David, who was so imperfect he was not permitted to build the temple.
Trump is imperfect like most, but his imperfections place him in the group of averages when one considers this Republic and freedom of speech. Can you explain to us his three worst flaws that make him not fit for the Presidency? He made mistakes, but he did not abuse his office like many others.
If you wish to continue to make your claims, it becomes your obligation to describe his abuse of office and compare that abuse to others.
Doug Bergum, Asa Hutchinson, Chris Christie, Nikki Haley….any of these would have been sound, experienced Chief Executives, and any could have beaten Joe Biden. They are much more skilled at governing than Trump or Biden. Why, then, do Repub voters prefer an uncouth a-hole with narcissitic-personality disorder, and who cannot lead a stable team, and who doesn’t know much about governing?
And who is his own worst enemy, and will lose again.
I’m not arguing for perfection. I’m arguing for a winning strategy, instead of the fantasy-ideation of “owning the libs”. The election is decided by independent voters in 7 states. And Trump daily signals that he won’t offend his loyal base by stretching to attract moderate independents.
Doug Bergum, Asa Hutchinson, Chris Christie, Nikki Haley…,,
The uni party? No, Thank, You!
“any of these would have been sound, experienced Chief Executives”
PbinCA, please don’t argue on my behalf for a winning strategy. I prefer Trump and, if not Trump, DeSantis, who you failed to include on your list despite him being an extremely successful governor. The nation wins with Trump and loses with your choices. But that is my opinion if you still permit me to have one of my own. I know that you want to wipe out disinformation, and your way appears to mean I am censored. I will not let you, but I will support you in an effort to improve information as long as the rule of law is upheld.
Why do I support Trump? Let me start with the border. Under Never-Trumpers and leftist control, Trump was able to secure the border. The Democrats and Never-Trumpers don’t care about the 100,000 plus drug overdose deaths that are increasing or the thousands of children dying in the desert, slavery, prostitution, disease, terrorists etc. When you start discussing candidates based on that problem and the numerous other problems Trump solved or was solving, I’ll listen closely.
The above was mine [PbinCA, please don’t argue on my behalf for a winning strategy.], S. Meyer
pbinCA tried this one out:
“Doug Bergum, Asa Hutchinson, Chris Christie, Nikki Haley….any of these would have been sound, experienced Chief Executives, and any could have beaten Joe Biden.
Why didn’t you mention polling says ANY Republican could defeat Biden? Trying to figure out how an impartial Republican would love them Chris Christie as the nominee. And what percentage of support did Chris Christie get during the primary during the primary? How about how much support Chris Christie got from Democrats as governor – what was his popularity rating when he left office?
Why, then, do Repub voters prefer an uncouth a-hole with narcissitic-personality disorder, and who cannot lead a stable team, and who doesn’t know much about governing?
Why do gaslighting sockpuppets say they find Trump to be a narcisstic a-hole: but while they attempt to cosplay as having just one set of standards, have never posted a line about what narcissitic a-holes both Obama and now Biden are? Only Trump, not all three?
And why do those same gaslighting sockpuppets say Trump doesn’t know much about governing? While most people will look at Trump’s record while governing versus Obama’s and now Obama again with Biden being his Third Term?
The Chicoms are on the move again, Russia has invaded again, the DPRK is back to developing nukes and ballistic missiles again, Iran is being funded and empowered as it’s puppet terrorists attack American interests and murder Americans again. Oh, and the economy is a dumpster fire… there’s that as well.
There’s LOTS to criticize about Trump’s tactics and staff choices. He wasn’t my first choice the first time around, he wasn’t my first choice this time either. I think his rhetoric is equally as bad as Biden calling Republicans semi-fascists and Obama and Clinton before him running with the same theme and rhetoric leveled at Republican voters.
Wait… pbinCA didn’t notice any of that while Obama and Biden were campaigning and then in office.
The sockpuppet gaslighting against Trump becomes patently obvious when the same and more that can be said about both Obama and Biden is left unsaid.
Particularly when it’s the same sockpuppet who today is also claiming the three hour long riot was an ‘insurrection’ when the FBI said otherwise, and supposedly the DC courts and prosecutors are no different in how they handle alleged and obvious crimes anywhere else in America.
Is that the best you can do? You should refund the DNC the wages it pays you.
Another Anonymous coward tried this cut ‘n paste as a version of engaging in discussion
“Politico: Court Has Been Trying To ‘Limit’ Delay Procedures”
Ah yes… Politico the very epitomy of impartiality and truth-telling in American journalism. Apparently, we should hang on every word of their op-eds due to their well known reputation for being impartial rather than being propagandists for the Democrats and Biden!
I actually clicked the monetizing link to spend a few minutes of my life that I’ll never get back reading it. One thing that stood out to me is that the “constitutional expert” that wrote it says that SCOTUS should have rejected Trump’s appeal to them – while everyday Americans actually paying attention know that it was Bribery Biden’s version of Lavarentiy Beria, Jack Smith, who appealed to SCOTUS. NOT Trump.
More of an op-ed by a Lyin’ Like A Proud Biden political apparatchik – not a trustworthy constitutional expert.
The United States cannot have a presidential election where one of the major candidates is facing a felonies in Federal Court. It’s a prescription for disaster!
There’s a common thread here where cowardly Anonymous posters claim we can’t have this next election until Trump is speedily tried by Jack Smith in Federal court. But absolutely no concern about the same federal justice system and prosecutors that have been hiding and withholding evidence about Biden criminality for the last three elections, continuing on into this one.
How long has Smith’s counterpart Weiss been shielding The Big Guy’s cashier son from facing felonies in Federal Court? Or more accurately, how many elections so far has The Big Guy’s cashier son been hidden and shielded from facing felonies in Federal Court? Felonies where he might be offered a plea deal to stay out of prison by testifying about The Big Guy he complains gets 10% of the take?
No concern by these Anonymous cowards that the FBI and DoJ went overboard to conceal evidence of Biden selling America to adversarial nations from the Vice President’s office prior to the last election. Including engineering and paying for the censorship of news media who attempted to publish the bribery messages on the laptop.
Now THATS a recipe for disaster if that continues with Obama’s Fourth Term. All you have to do is look at what has happened to America and the world since the DoJ and FBI hid that laptop tying the candidate, Biden, to the bribes and moneylaundering and Biden became president.
This is a combination of “Look! Squirrel!” and at the same time “Please don’t believe your lying eyes”.
There waS NO insurrection, so there was and is NO case against President Donald J. Trump. None. The Oxford Dictionary defines insurrection as: a violent uprising or rebellion against a government or authority. It implies a coordinated and often armed resistance with the aim of overthrowing or opposing established rule.
President Trump gave no such suggestion to commit insurectionist acts. Nor did any of the protestors engage in any conduct that could be called an “insurrection.” The Feds didn’t have any problem with BLM, Antifa, or any of the other Lefty groups committing actual violence and insurrectionist conduct! So why do they have a problem with the peaceful protesting Trump supporters?
Is the real crime here, according to the Democrats, supporting President Donald J. Trump, a political opponent, rather than insurrection?
A RESOUNDING YES!
You don’t seem to understand. Trump is being indicted for trying to mickey the Electoral College to flip the election. These offenses took place before Jan 6th, and don’t depend in any way on the riot at the Capitol.
Your impulse to defend Trump has clouded your mind — he tried to pull a lawyerly soft coup, and you’re defense is “there was no insurrection”. Both things are true. How do you defend the attempted soft coup using lawyers?
Hillary Clinton had a plan to flip committed electoral voters from Trump in 2016. No claim of ” insurrection” from anyone.
Edward Mahl,
Well said and spot on.
Edward Mahl posted this observation in reply to pbinCA gaslighting:
“Hillary Clinton had a plan to flip committed electoral voters from Trump in 2016. No claim of ” insurrection” from anyone.”
Based on what pbinCA has posted so far this morning, objectively he’s a sockpuppet gaslighting the forum with his version of Speak Your Truth regarding historical thoughts.
We’re supposed to accept his claim that objective, impartial justice is fairly handed out in DC courts.
We’re supposed to believe his flexing and posing about being concerned about potentially illegally changing Electoral College votes – while he skips right past 2016 when numerous personalities from the Soviet Democrats’ rich and famous openly offered bribes to Electoral College voters from Trump states to change their electoral college vote from Trump to Clinton. Not a single one of them ever ended up being charged to appear before an impartial DC court
And Trump making the use of the legal avenues provided in the Electoral Count Act to attempt to challenge an upcoming Electoral College vote after an election was a felony according to pbinCA (and his fellow police state fascist Special Counsel Jack Smith). Say that long enough and as Joseph Goebbels said, eventually the lie will be accepted as truth.
But three previous attempts by Democrats in the House to use those very same legal avenues within the Electoral Count Act to stop an elected Republican from becoming president in the Electoral College vote after the election were completely legitimate. Why legal for elected House Democrats to use those legal avenues to halt or change an Electoral College vote, but not for an elected Republican President to attempt to use those same legal avenues?
And then of course, the insistence that the three hour long riot was an “insurrection”, despite the fact the FBI investigating did not find it to be an insurrection. Despite the fact “show me the man and I’ll find you his crimes” Jack Smith didn’t use his inventive lawyering skill set to charge Trump with insurrection. It’s like a sockpuppet appearing here to speak for Commisar Pelosi’s January 6th Very Un-select Committee who hid as much exculpatory evidence as they had their Hollywood producer edit and put on display.
Give pbinCA this: it’s presenting a higher quality level of gaslighting than the usual Soviet Democrat police state fascists here post to defend and protect Biden while going after Trump in a Jack Smith manner.
1)” for trying to mickey the Electoral College to flip the election.”
“lawyerly soft coup”
2) “you’re defense is “there was no insurrection”. Both things are true.”
PbinCA, in number 1, you utilize words that have no legal implications. No laws are preventing Trump from doing those things you mentioned that were done before. What you are trying to do is prevent anyone from disputing a result you favor.
Since number 1 doesn’t work in a country with the rule of law, you admit the crux of the issue: the law does not permit insurrection, but you accept Trump was not involved in the insurrection. That you are dissatisfied with your inability to prove number 2 doesn’t mean you should make up a legal basis like you do in number 1.
Trump had the opportunity to go to court in the states to challenge the election results. That is the legal process. He lost all those challenges because his claims were speculative only, not backed up by factual evidence. Where he screwed up bad was trying to win “by other means” after exhausting these court challenges. He’s a sore loser. I respect his time as my President before making these extra-Constitutional contrivances. He was warned by Hershman and Cippolini (WH lawyers) he could be indicted for trying to mess with the Electoral College, and basically said “I don’t care”.
So, he’s going to finally face the music.
The thing that most disqualifies Trump is his self-image as being “perfect”. He never makes a mistake…it’s always someone else’s fault when something goes wrong. The child inside refuses to grow up and take responsibility for mistakes. Definite personality issues. But, I do support his policies.
Trump had the opportunity to go to court in the states to challenge the election results. That is the legal process.
No matter. Congress has the power to refuse to accept a states slate of electors. Democrats have done that to Every Republican President since Reagan The Process failed, but it is a constitutional process.
“Trump had the opportunity to go to court in the states to challenge the election results. ”
Did you fail to notice how many cases there were, the likely coordinated effort, the possible collision with the White House, the timing of the indictments and how empty the accusations are? There is no question that almost all have no basis. Don’t tell Americans who are supportive of a strong and prosperous nation how to vote. They voted right the first time, and please refrain from telling Trump how to conduct his business. You can vote for Biden, who you likely voted for in the last election, or you can choose another candidate. You have your vote and your voice that is able to be used to help everyone come to policies that lead to good governance following the rule of law.
“He lost all those challenges ”
If you are talking about the election challenges, Trump won the vast majority of those where merit was involved. Why don’t you know that? The amount of material written on the subject of election interference and election fraud is voluminous. Still, you won’t see much of it when you treat things you disagree with as disinformation. That is why your attempts at censorship are so wrong. You prove it. Twitter, the MSM, etc., canceled people and much of the news, so you were left without this knowledge.
“But, I do support his policies.”
You are an intelligent person, so face reality instead of things that count very little when the person is in charge of a superpower.
pbinCA let his Soviet Democrat police state fascist apparatchik credentials show with this one:
“You don’t seem to understand. Trump is being indicted for trying to mickey the Electoral College to flip the election.”
You either don’t understand Trump has every right to seek the legal avenues against these irregularities as he did – or you do know and are playing ignorance as part of your agenda. Just as you did with your earlier gaslighting attempt to present DC courts as being impartial, unbiased bastions of objective American justice.
Trump has every right to seek the remedies offered under the Electoral Count Act of 1888(?). Just as your fellow Democrats in elected office have tried previously with Trump and before him with Bush after their elections. Three times in recent years. They failed to get the actions they asked for – just as Trump also failed to get the support he needed.
Were your fellow Democrats trying to mickey the Electoral College to flip the election the three times they’ve attempted that since 2001. Or is that Democrat Different because they were Democrats and those were Republican elected presidents?
Now as for illegally attempting to mickey the Electoral College: any particular reason you aren’t demanding trials for all the wealthy and movie stars that offered bribes to Electoral College voters if they would become false electors and vote for Biden instead of Trump who won their states? Not a single one of them publicly offering those bribes were charged in the DC courtroom for doing that. But a DC court just convicted a social media personality who created a satirical meme about Biden?
That’s the Democrat Difference for the DC courts you’re pimping for? The Electoral College supposed tampering you’re pimping for?
You repeat the January 6th Soviet Show Trial claim of an insurrection – which leaves us wondering why your Lavarentiy Beria goon, Jack Smith, hasn’t charged Trump or any of his co-defendants with that. Tell us: is that just an oversight on Smith’s part, despite his well earned reputation for “inventive lawyering”, including inventing new laws to charge with?
You don’t seem to understand – or more likely hope nobody notices – that Jack Smith is a vile, unconscionable police state fascist version of a Special Counsel to fraudulently foist on Americans. The very opposite of the high principles of American justice that you were attempting to cosplay as supporting earlier. In other words, you are an obvious fraud attempting to gaslight us, just as Jack Smith and his engineered charges are.
Jack Smith while working for the Obama/Biden administration DoJ advised Louis Lerner of the IRS that she could shut down GOP get-out-the-vote groups for the duration of the reelection campaign by investigating their tax status. And Jack Smith for his own part in the integrity unit of Obama’s DoJ, indicted the Republican potential candidate that Obama and Biden were terrified to face, Governor Bob McDonnell (and his wife who wasn’t in office) for public corruption.
After Obama had won the election, those GOP groups sued the IRS for suppression of their First Amendment rights during the reelection campaign – taxpayers, not Louis Lerner, Jack Smith, or the Obama election campaign were on the hook for paying tens of millions of dollars in punitive damages.
In a rare 9-0 SCOTUS decision, Jack Smith’s indicting and conviction of McDonnell and his wife was flat out reversed, not sent back to the lower courts. SCOTUS excoriated Jack Smith for rewriting public corruption laws to fit his agenda while creating new laws at the same time.
But Jack Smith’s objective using lawfare against Republicans succeeded: Obama and Biden were reelected against a weaker opponent, Bob ODonnell was acquitted and left asking “where do I go to get my career and reputation back”, and Jack Smith walked. Wasn’t even censured by the DC bar for election interference after that SCOTUS decisioin, never mind disbarred.
And now Biden has brought back Jack Smith who took out their most dangerous opponent for the upcoming 2012 re-election to take out Biden’s most dangerous opponent in the 2024 election.
Jack Smith should have been disbarred long before Trump ran for office – but he’s part of the DC court system that you’re gaslighting us with claims it is the embodiment of American equal justice for all.
If there is one person in America that should never be presented to Americans as an unbiased Special Counsel with no ties to politics or the DoJ, it’s Jack Smith.
And here you are, pimping for him and another round of his police state fascist agenda in service to police state fascist Soviet Democrats. Straight out of Lavarentiy Beria’s playbook for Stalin: “Show me the man and I’ll find you his crimes”.
Disgusting.
“A SITTING PRESIDENT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE FROM INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The president, in a position of high office, is subject to prosecution related to all crimes by constitutional impeachment and conviction.
The fact that state and local prosecutions are unnecessary constitutes effective immunity.
The president would be precluded from official duties by overwhelming numbers of state and local prosecutions.
State and local prosecution would nullify and void the office of president and constitute political, not jurisprudential, acts.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
October 16, 2000
“A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution”
In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the
continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Assistant Attorney General
Office o f Legal Counsel
Trump is not the sitting President. The OLC’s memo only applies while the person is in office. And impeachments are not criminal prosecutions.
Hey moron, it’s from acts while in office, did you read at all or just spew lib lies for fun ?
“Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR ACTS THAT OCCURRED DURING HIS PRESIDENCY, FOR A *FORMER PRESIDENT*.
NOW SHOVE IT LIBTURD. Oblerman will kiss you while Whoopie rubs your tum tum as you cry.
There is little difference in impact on a sitting president from actual prosecution while in office and the threat of prosecution after he leaves.
And you have very effectively demonstrated that With Trump.
Many republicans are salivating at the prospect of revenge when Trump wins in 2024.
Is that your idea of how our government should work ? A cage match between the left and the right and whoever manages to avoid jail wins ?
There is ZERO doubt that the constitution does not grant the president the ability to do whatever they please with impunity and no consequences.
At the same time there should be no doubt that we are not governable if politics devolves to weaponization of law enforcement.
I would remind you that Clauswitz said “war is politics by other means” – is that where you want to head ?
The left rants about insurrection – January 6 was not an insurrection. But if the left continues to hold power and continues to be lawless, fascist and totalitarian – that is where we are headed.
This country was born in insurrection. Our founders did not fear insurrection.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson
The declaration of independence explicitly endorses insurrection as an escape hatch from abusive government.
Either we figure out how to abide by the rule of law within our government.
That means no unusual broad reads of the law to target enemies,
That if we do not like the law or constitution as it is we change it through the legitimate process,
not by fiat or by weaponizing whatever portion of government we control.
We enforce the laws we have as they are written – not the laws we wish we had.
We do not concoct new meanings interpretations and applications of existing laws or constitutions that deviate from long held norms.
I(f we do not like the constitution or the law as it is – we change it.
If we can not do that – we live with it as it is.
The DOJ concluded the president cannot be indicted or prosecuted; he would have no time to be president.
The Constitution provided impeachment and conviction.
Shall we indict Barack “The Ineligible” for the murder of Bin Laden?
Bin Laden and al Zawahiri declared war on the United States in 1998 in the fatwa that Condi Rice and the media chose to ignore (the blue dress was much more important). But, that declaration and his acts of war sealed his fate.
Obama assassinated an American citizen without due process which is clearly illegal
But the supposed acts occurred while he was president. If this stands, Biden and Mayorkas should be charged as accessories for the countless murders that are being perpetrated by the illegal aliens that have crossed the border since they took office.
Campaigning for a 2nd term is a special case for an incumbent President — those activities made toward remaining in Office for a 2nd term are legally NOT official acts of Office. If they were, then that would give the incumbent an unfair power advantage over a challenger. So, whatever immunities spring from the powers of acting as President DO NOT apply when it comes to competing for a 2nd term. It’s the Hatch Act.
Pres. Obama likely violated the Hatch Act during the transition to Trump, by taking steps to delegitimize the President-elect, and set the table for his impeachment.
pbinCA tried another sockpuppet distraction:
“Campaigning for a 2nd term is a special case for an incumbent President — those activities made toward remaining in Office for a 2nd term are legally NOT official acts of Office.”
Wrong, completely and totally wrong. Again.
There is no such distinction between first term and second term campaign activity in any applicable legislation, including the Electoral Count Act. You can’t keep making up federal law like the Soviet Democrats’ unqualified and illegal Special Prosecutor Jack Smith continues to do. Well, you can try, obviously; that’s true.
The Electoral Count Act provides not just the Democrats who were just elected mechanisms to try to halt, revise, or recount Electoral College votes for a president who was elected but is not yet confirmed i.e. Bush, Trump, etc. – but also presidents like Trump seeking reelection the exact same legal mechanisms.
It’s the Hatch Act. Pres. Obama likely violated the Hatch Act during the transition to Trump, by taking steps to delegitimize the President-elect, and set the table for his impeachment.
The Electoral Count Act is not the Hatch Act that Cringe Jean-Pierre, White House Spokes Liar references to avoid answering questions. Lots of Soviet Democrats including Obama and Biden possibly violated numerous statutes both before, during and after Trump ran for office. Maybe even the questionable Hatch Act they set out plotting to take out General Flynn with.
There’s better and far more serious crimes that Obama, Biden, and Clinton and their DoJ Crime Cartel are almost certainly guilty of.
It is a crime to hire and pay foreign nationals to work on election campaign products like the “Russia Dossier”. Obama as head of the DNC knew who those foreign nationals were, both the British and Russian foreign nationals, and did nothing to stop his party continuing the crime of paying them to create and then push the “Russia Dossier” in an attempt to take out Trump and Clinton to be the victor. Donna Brazile as head of the DNC at that time wrote of how they knowingly did that in her book. The confidence that Biden had in bragging how he used a quid pro quo to get the prosecutor investigating his cashier son fired is matched by that of Donna Brazile writing of how they hired and paid two foreign agents to work on the Clinton election campaign.
Obama and Biden both knew that Hillary Clinton was violating the provisions of the Espionage Act with every electronic exchange over her unsecured electronic devices that referenced/contained classified information. They knew because not only did they know she never once used a government provided email address or White House supplied electronic device for her communications, but they regularly had to have their Blackberries updated with her latest new private address as her email and her servers were hacked. They knew because documents show Obama’s CIA Director John Brennon told Obama (and obviously his ‘foreign policy expert’ Biden) that at least five adversarial nations had access to her comms.
So unless Obama and the Soviet Democrats can provide proof that Obama declassified each piece of classified information during the four years he received or sent to his Secretary of State Clinton classified information the moment it arrived on his devices or he sent it to Clinton, Obama knowingly aided and enabled all of those Clinton classified information felonies.
Obama also was culpable in knowingly aiding and abetting Secretary of State Clinton’s violation of legal requirements to preserve official communications on her illegal, unsecured devices and mail servers. Oddly enough, the Archivist at the National Archives and Records Administration, did not go to President Trump after Obama left office to suggest Clinton and her co-conspirator Obama be investigated by the FBI for those violations. You know – like he did with Trump four years later.
And Obama and Biden were fully aware that their FBI Director and last two Attorney Generals were repeatedly committing the felonies of perjury to FISA courts and uttering false documents to those courts. They had been told by the FBI that their “Russia Dossier” was plain old crap and salacious bar room gossip before they told James Comey to investigate Trump as though their “Russia Dossier” was real.
Knowing the requirements to get a FISA counterespionage warrant i.e. the Woods procedures, they knew Comey and his gang of felons spying on Carter Page, Trump, etc were committing those felonies each time they went before the FISA justices and got warrants based on their “Russia Dossier”. Obama, after all, is a brilliant Harvard lawyer and the smartest guy in the room. For his part, Biden claims to have graduated at the top of his law class and is a seasoned lawmaker.
By allowing the FBI under them to continue that long string of federal felonies, Obama and Biden should both be in the docket right beside Comey, their Attorney Generals, Mueller, and the rest who swore under oath to those warrants claiming the “Russia Dossier” was real and the information inside verified.
Oh, there’s lots of Soviet Democrat crime related to police state fascism long before they brought Jack Smith back to take out the latest leading Republican candidate.
But I don’t believe for one minute that any one of them will ever see a single indictment for anything they ever did. That includes The Big Guy, the politician who is the worst America has seen at being completely corrupt in full public view.