Writes lawprof Jack Goldsmith (in the NYT):
First, he must determine whether the decision to indict Mr. Trump is his to make. If Mr. Garland decides that a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump is warranted, Justice Department regulations require him to appoint a special counsel if the investigation presents a conflict of interest for the department and if Mr. Garland believes such an appointment would be in the public interest....
If Mr. Garland opens a Trump investigation and keeps the case... the second issue is whether ... Mr. Trump’s acts constitute a federal offense and “the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”... The two most frequently mentioned crimes Mr. Trump may have committed are the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding (the Jan. 6 vote count) and conspiracy to defraud the United States (in working to overturn election results). Many have noted that Mr. Trump can plausibly defend these charges by arguing that he lacked criminal intent because he truly believed that massive voter fraud had taken place. Mr. Trump would also claim that key elements of his supposedly criminal actions — his interpretations of the law, his pressure on Mr. Pence, his delay in responding to the Capitol breach and more — were exercises of his constitutional prerogatives as chief executive....
If Mr. Garland concludes that Mr. Trump has committed convictable crimes, he would face the third and hardest decision: whether the national interest would be served by prosecuting Mr. Trump.... Indicting a past and possible future political adversary of the current president would be a cataclysmic event from which the nation would not soon recover. It would be seen by many as politicized retribution. The prosecution would take many years to conclude; would last through, and deeply impact, the next election; and would leave Mr. Trump’s ultimate fate to the next administration, which could be headed by Mr. Trump....
Posts
88 comments:
There is darkness inside rubbing it's hands gleefully at the prospect the Regime headed by an obviously corrupt senile thoroughly unpopular rapist indicts the man who got more legitimate votes for president than any person in history.
That is, it's a political question.
Next case...
Democrats are reduced to lawfare in trying top keep Trump out of office in 2024.
These are political decisions that will be made in the best interests of the DNC.
Garland will not be agonizing over them, he will take orders and do his duty like a good fascist.
Ham sandwich, anyone?
what absolute nonsense. Fine indict trump, but by the same logic you would have to indict most of the Democrat senate. The ones who call the riots of 2020 peaceful, and set up funds to free the thugs.
Or the Democrats who refused to accept the 2016 election results.
but it's a call to action by american pravda,NYT. written by someone who obviously feels trump is already guilty.
Just more mental masturbation by the left, who are in the process of falling off a cliff-desperate to gain any foot hold with the voting public.
Indict trump is in line with inflation is good, it's Putins fault, and white supremacy is Hispanics voting R.
They already spent his entire first term prosecuting him. They've continued with the persecution and fines and charges since he left office. (turn on MSNBC any day, any time of day, and count from 1 to see how far in the count you get before they say the word 'Trump'.)
Indicting him without allowing the other side to be heard or viewed, and setting loose another Special Prosecutor based on half of the 'evidence' seems almost Russia Collusion-like. Given the past history of the Russia Collusion spectacle, while Hunter, Joe, and James Biden clearly used Joe's office for payouts and he's left untouched? While the FBI made the conscious decision to ignore Hunter's laptop, Joe's Ukrainian meetings, Hunter's checks from the Mayor of Moscow? Ya think this might be seen as political retribution?
There is a time coming very soon when Democrats will not be anywhere near the control of power. I don't know what Republicans will end up doing, but it would be very hard for them not to at least consider investigating the investigators. Not saying I want our Government to turn into a back and forth of hearings, but you know...if they're busy in hearings they can't be making new laws. So there's that.
In which Goldsmith explains that any such proceedings by DOJ would be malicious prosecution and an abuse of power.
I believe indicting Trump would be an impeachable offense by Biden. Far worse action than the Zelensky call. The Dems have found no compelling evidence in two years of searching high and low. They are just trying to deep six a political opponent by subverting democracy.
If Kevin McCarthey had a pair, and we know he doesn't, this nonsense would stop if he would announce every Dem leader would be subpoenaed before a Jim Jordan run committee and grilled for days on end. Pealosi, Schiff, Obama, Hillary, Scheemer, the whole bunch. And then grilled some more.
I don't know if Garland is stupid enough to do this, but I also don't know that he isn't.
What the Democrats here might do is this- indict Trump then have Biden pardon him. If I were in Trump's shoes in this circumstance, I would refuse the pardon offer and force them to go to trial. I don't know what Trump would do, though.
Tells me the Democrats think Trump can beat them at the ballot box. Again.
So he wants a civil war?? Because that is what will happen if they keep poking the EXTREMELY angry bear. WHY do they keep doing that?? Because then they would have an excuse to imprison us all in their DC gulag or Gitmo once they release all the Islamic terrorists they feel so bad for.
If they imprison a former President for "obstruction of an official proceeding" and/or "conspiracy to defraud the United States" then our republic has failed and it's time to bring out the muskets.
THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN ON PRESIDENT EMERITUS TRUMP!!!
Oops. Excuse me. I just set my hair on fire.
John LGBTQ Henry
Joe Smith has this right. Garland, just like Biden, is not the person calling the shots. There is no right or wring to the decisions and no legal accountability if the decision is not legally justifiable. This is about power and desperation now. The people in charge are legitimately fearful that their arrangement will be revealed in 2022 and then 2024 and they will do anything, I mean anything, to prevent that from occurring. Biden and his administration are nothing but lapdogs .
He was already impeached and not convicted for the actions of January 6. At what point do Democrats turn away from their push to turn the USA into a banana Republic? I'm so old I remember when Trump smiling instead of objecting because the crowd chanted "Lock her up!" was considered disqualifying by all the right people, because even the hint of prosecuting a former rival was beneath comtempt.
As often noted here, without double standards the Left would have no standards at all. Just wait for Daniel to reiterate that point again.
Note: I misspelled "contempt." Please make a mental correction when reading my comment above.
It won't happen. The other side gets to present its argument. I think the defense argument would turn out more compelling than the prosecution. Garland doesn't want the truth presented in evidence.
The second decision listed by Goldsmith is automatically a “Yes” without Garland thinking about it. This administration’s DOJ is in “take no prisoners” mode from Day 1.
Example #1: Garland mobilized the DOJ without much thought against school parents complaining to their ELECTED school board members IMMEDIATELY, within hours, after the National School Boards Association sent him a letter (composed by the Biden administration, it turns out) when the wheels of bureaucracy normally would take weeks of investigation and deliberation before acting. Basically, the idea may have been to treat parents as domestic terrorists by the DOJ when the parents attempted to get their ELECTED officials to listen to them when these officials wouldn’t listen.
Example #2: Garland does and has said nothing about loud protestors outside of SCOTUS justices’ homes, in clear and direct violation of US Law to influence and disrupt federal judges’ and jurors’ homes. He is violating his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and our country’s laws by not having his law enforcement officers arrest and his prosecutors prosecute these protestors.
Garland is all about using the DOJ to advance the left’s political agenda, not enforcing the US Constitution and our laws already on the books. I wouldn’t be surprised if his DOJ is devoting many resources at the current time to not enforcing our laws, but to find a way around, legal / Constitutional or not, the expected overturning of Roe v. Wade by SCOTUS.
Jim said “you would have to indict the rest of the senate”. Jim, Jim, Jim have you not been paying attention?
Please do it. And do it before the midterms. Then let the new Republican-led House absolutely destroy every member of the white trash Biden family. Do it, Garland, you sawed-off pussy.
"To indict Mr. Trump for these and other acts, Mr. Garland must make three decisions, each more difficult than the previous, and none of which has an obvious answer"
Then he has to ask question 4: does he want to spend the rest of his life in jail, starting Feb 2025?
"The two most frequently mentioned crimes Mr. Trump may have committed are the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States"
Both those charges can be applied to every single Cabinet level official in the Biden Admin, esp WRT immigration law.
GOP will be taking over the House and the Senate next year. Which means lots of Biden* Admin officials brought before Congress, and engaging in the "corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding" when they lie / refuse to answer questions.
Venue will be changed to rural GOP counties, and they'll all be convicted.
Two can play that game
Every NPR hourly agitprop session begins with a story about "The Deadly January 6th Insurrection at the Capitol" or "Trump Lashes Out."
I don't think the more rational D's (the ones you rarely see or hear from) can stop the avalanche the Trumpophobes have started. Persecution and prosecution of Trump and his family is still very popular among the same people who have demanded it from the beginning; the backlash if they overstep this time may be literally fatal for some of them.
Either way, what has been set in motion has its own momentum, and the sorry hack time-servers in charge, aren't.
It's my understanding that until the last decade or less, "defrauding the U.S." meant getting money by illicit means. The use of this charge for election fraud is very recent and, to my layman's mind, does not sound like a legitimate use of the law. For the sake of the country, if you're going after a major figure like Trump, you shouldn't use questionable legal tactics.
The only impeachable offence Biden can commit would be losing 17 of the 11 democratic Senate seats up for election this year.
Impeachment is not a legal process with political implications, it's a political process with legal implications.
How many Democrats are guilty of "corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding"?
Well, we can start with any Democrat who has ever let protesters into a Congressional hearing in order to obstruct the hearing.
"Kavanaugh nomination", ring any bells here?
Does "code pink" ring any bells?
The Democrats are MORE than welcome to charge Trump. Because there are a LOT of Democrats I'd like to see in jail, and they'd be opening the door for that
What's that theory of holes again??
Demos-cracy is aborted at The Twilight Fringe. Yeah, go with that.
Here’s hoping Mr. Garland tries and fails miserably. I like seeing partisan fuckery fail.
“In which Goldsmith explains that any such proceedings by DOJ would be malicious prosecution and an abuse of power.”
That’s all they’ve got these day: Malicious prosecution and abuse of power.
Looking fwd to another quadrennial not-Trump Presidential ticket featuring those superfirst-evers: Harris/Buttigieg.
Me3rrick Garland has been debunked as a prosecutor. Next.
Democrats, Biden-supporters, and Trump-haters seem to think the danger to our democracy started on Jan 6. They willfully forget that, for Trump supporters, the danger began in 2016. Come at us. We've been staring at the abyss for six years now.
It would be seen by many as politicized retribution.
And who can ever forget how Garland's own nomination to the SCOTUS was scuttled by the GOP controlled majority leader, the same senate majority leader that later installed Trump's handpicked nominee, Neil Gorsuch 🙄
Are we on the verge of seeing another historical Biden Administration First i.e. the indictment of a former president and political rival?
What is one more bite at the now 3X impeached and 1X senate tried Trump?
What I thought I knew about Watergate, and thus the Democratic Party, seems to be unraveling.
From Real Clear Politics
It seems incontestable that the FBI has interfered with domestic politics over the past 6 years, maybe much longer. I never really thought about what all the stories about Hoover's blackmailing politicians really implied about politics while he was Director of the FBI. Now I do and I am left wondering about the CIA as well. It (re-evaluating Watergate) suggests that the current war between Trump and the Democrats is only part of a broader historical undercurrent of dirty tricks that have been misrepresented to the public. No wonder Hilary thought she could get away with the Russian Hoax.
I seem to be more susceptible to conspiracy theories than I was for most of my adult life.
It's kind of like all of the focus on "flying saucers" that have recently been the subject of hearings. For a long time I dismissed that as a ruse to get more funding for the intelligence agencies, which I did not consider a conspiracy theory, just the way the world worked. But now that explanation seems less likely and my worldview is unraveling.
Maybe it's a side effect of warfarin.
Remember- the corrupt deep state leftwing Democrat elite have threatened any and all potential legal counsel for Trump.
The left are truly Soviet and North Korean.
Yes Wendy we want you miserable threatening big mouth cowards to literally go ballistic. Please please please. You first.
Seems to me to go after the defrauding charge, they'd first have to prove the election results were legitimate. Sure, they were being processed as required by the required gatekeepers, but there has been a concerted effort not to do a thorough post-election analysis of the actual voting. And the process isn't done until the acceptance of the vote by Congress.
And then, does anyone believe that any trial with a DC jury pool would be seen as legitimate after the Sussman trial? Could be the impetus needed so that trials of a political nature are randomly assigned across US circuits rather than the DC circuit, and the politically biased jury pool of that circuit, being the only venue. After all, the election, fraud, lying to the FISA court, etc. effect all citizens, not just those in the DC area. Trials should not be restricted to where only certain citizens are in the potential jury pool.
Here's what everyone needs to understand.
It doesn't matter who is in the White House or Congress.
It only matters if an indictment is brought in DC.
If it is, than ANY republican or Trump supporter WILL be found guilty.
This is not hard people...try to keep up.
What the Democrats here might do is this- indict Trump then have Biden pardon him.
That may sound good around the conference table as the millenial staff members are brainstorming, but that is political suicide for anybody involved in recommending it or carrying it out.
There are too many democrats that are convinced that the "walls are closing in" and that would be akin to taking away the birthday cake.
All of which means they will probably try to get Biden to do it.
I was leaning towards a "secret indictment". Say that there is a secret indictment filed away someplace. They will think it hamstrings Trump without having to take the political cost in indicting him, or the political cost in countering his eventual defense.
As to his defense, it seems to me the trial would be the actual litigation of the 2020 election that never happened. He now has standing, and while there is no remedy to the election there is a remedy in regards to avoiding conviction.
Jim said: "Fine indict trump, but by the same logic you would have to indict most of the Democrat senate."
In other words, whatever happens to Trump, Democrats are safe.
National Review, in their editorial today, which I retitle as "The January 6 Shit Show" - we are told only that Trump "was unfit to be entrusted with the office, and Republican voters should discourage him from seeking it again."
"The nation should move past Donald Trump. We should not forget what happened on January 6, but we should also be confident in the strength of our democratic institutions to withstand attempts by bad actors to illegitimately cling to power."
So after six years, highlighted by lies, more lies, grifting, and more grifting, with a whole bunch of sedition tossed in, finally culminating in a violent putsch attempt, NRO returns to its "Against Trump" position which they first took before TFG was elected in the first place because he was a threat to conservatism.
The Dems also want to prosecute Ginni Lamp Thomas; wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarance Thomas. Another high tech lynching by the worst people in the world.
"...the man who got more legitimate votes for president than any person in history."
Assumes facts not in evidence.
So he wants a civil war?? Because that is what will happen if they keep poking the EXTREMELY angry bear. WHY do they keep doing that??
@wendybar, for the same reason the Confederates shelled Ft. Sumter. They think they’ll win.
Is it worth the time and trouble to prosecute Dems for their actions over the past 6 years, come February 2023, or should the Republican majority in Congress just ram through law after law that Biden has to accept or veto up to election day 2024? I'd like to see both, but I know how inept the Repubs can be in trying to act in a unified manner to accomplish anything. So I'm dreaming about some immediate legislative action and a bit of political theater, at least, but expecting the RINOs to delay legislation and decry political retribution. As foretold in the prophecies....
I concur with the questions, but agree with others that how they will be answered will likely not be from thoughtful consideration of the ramifications by Garland. If the ramifications were considered, we wouldn't be this far along. The best Democrats and the establishments can do along this path is prevent Trump from regaining office. That is not the best the American people can do with this new power they would hand to us.
Biden Junta!
If the Dems succeed in eliminating Trump from the 2024 election, they likely will then have to contend with an arguably even more electable DeSantis.
Dems really can't think more than one move ahead, can they?
'It won't happen. The other side gets to present its argument. I think the defense argument would turn out more compelling than the prosecution. Garland doesn't want the truth presented in evidence.'
@Rusty...see my 1:05pm comments.
It doesn't matter what evidence is presented by Trump in his defense.
A DC jury will gleefully crucify him 5 minutes after 'deliberating.'
Then they will all go out and get book deals.
Any 'evidence' that Trump requests as part of discovery will be lost or wiped with a cloth.
If Garland decides to prosecute, Trump is as good as convicted.
The only silver lining is the potential backlash from conservatives and Trump supporters...it could get ugly.
Lem said...
It would be seen by many as politicized retribution.
And who can ever forget how Garland's own nomination to the SCOTUS was scuttled by the GOP controlled majority leader, the same senate majority leader that later installed Trump's handpicked nominee, Neil Gorsuch 🙄
Are you trying to pretend that criminal prosecution and the operation of the DoJ is supposed to be just as political as a Senate Confirmation vote?
Dave Begley:
1. I believe the Dems have said they wanted to talk to Ms. Thomas given her communications with John Eastman. Do you have a problem with that?
2. Do you think it was appropriate for Justice Thomas to rule on a case seeking the disclosure of records including documents written by Ms. Thomas? Perhaps an appearance of impropriety?
Try to take off your political hat and put on your lawyer hat, if you are able.
Professor Althouse does not accurately summarize Professor Goldsmith's third point. She faithfully quotes Professor Goldsmith's description of the downsides of bringing even a factually and legally sound prosecution. But she deliberately omits his description of the downsides of a decision not to bring such a prosecution. Professor Goldsmith writes:
"A failure to indict Mr. Trump in these circumstances would imply that a president — who cannot be indicted while in office — is literally above the law, in defiance of the very notion of constitutional government. It would encourage lawlessness by future presidents, none more so than Mr. Trump should he win the next election. By contrast, the rule of law would be vindicated by a Trump conviction. And it might be enhanced by a full judicial airing of Mr. Trump’s possible crimes in office, even if it ultimately fails."
The omission makes the case for not bringing a well founded prosecution seem stronger, and less troubling, than Professor Goldsmith thinks it is, or that anyone committed to the rule of law (as Professor Althouse claims to be) should think it is.
As to his defense, it seems to me the trial would be the actual litigation of the 2020 election that never happened. He now has standing, and while there is no remedy to the election there is a remedy in regards to avoiding conviction.
About time someone besides me realized this. It seems obvious to me that Trump’s best defense would be to call witnesses to testify that, indeed, he lost the election due to massive cheating in a relatively small number of locales after Republican poll watchers were illegally sent away. You’d think Garland would realize this, but if he’s dumb enough to pick a fight with the housewives of Loudoun County, Virginia, then he’s pretty stupid.
And if Trump succeeded in making his case, regardless of the results of the actual trial,, the phrase “Constitutional crisis” would not begin to describe the fallout.
IF I needed any more convincing that NR had jumped the shark, and I did not, there would be few better examples than the fact Gadfly reads them and quotes them now and no actual conservatives and Republicans I know even give a shit about NR or their lame site NRO. Well, maybe Hugh Hewitt does, but no one else on our side. I haven't read a word of their nevertrump BS in over 6 years.
You lefties are welcome to the deep thinking of Lowry et al now. Enjoy!
It would not just be seen as political, it would actually be political.
Hard to imagine anything more stupid, but at this point would not surpise.
Garland has come across to me as a puppet, a man supposedly in charge but is really just a figurehead who was selected merely because of his name recognition, which is ironic since he was selected as a Supreme Court nominee because of his anonymity. He seems generally uninterested, a man who was recruited against his better judgment. I suppose he could grow a pair, but I doubt the decision is his to make.
It must be sad to be a puppet of a puppet.
It is amusing to see "experts" still pretend that the government is actually functioning well.
I assumed a POTUS was immunized against being prosecuted for crimes done in performance of his office. And that impeachment was the correct punishment.
Or maybe that was just wishful thinking on my part. Its more likely, the NORM and TRADITION was that a current POTUS didn't want an ex-POTUS to be prosecuted and jailed for made up crimes by the state prosecutors or vengeful political opponents.
First, it tears the country apart. second, it diminishes the office of the President, and thirdly, opens up the current POTUS for a retalitory prosecution when he retires.
Obviously, Biden doesn't think the R's would retaliate, he doesn't care about Norms and traditions, and and has ZERO desire to unify the country. And the same is true of Pelosi and Schumer and the D's in General.
So after six years, highlighted by lies, more lies, grifting, and more grifting, with a whole bunch of sedition tossed in, finally culminating in a violent putsch attempt, NRO returns to its "Against Trump" position which they first took before TFG was elected in the first place because he was a threat to conservatism.
gadfly got that wrong. He was a threat to grifters of both parties.
a violent putsch attempt,
Is all in your imagination. People with iPhones taking selfies. The only violence was by Capitol Police. And FBI plants, of course.
Its also obvious we cant count on the SCOTUS to deliver us from jailing an ex-POTUS on trumped up (pun intended) charges. The 3 D's would vote to execute Trump if the could, and Roberts is the same. The 3 R Trump appointed Justices have been extremely ungratful, and I wouldn't count on them for anything.
PM (12:41pm):
Best thing about a Harris/Buttigieg ticket? The inevitable abbreviation - like "Billary" for both Clintons - would be a combination of the first 4 or 5 letters of each name. We would call it "the HarriButt ticket" and (God help us all if they win) "the HarriButt administration".
Sounds like "reasonable doubt' is built into the charges. It's almost as if they should never be brought.
'Obviously, Biden doesn't think the R's would retaliate, he doesn't care about Norms and traditions, and and has ZERO desire to unify the country. And the same is true of Pelosi and Schumer and the D's in General.'
They won't retaliate because they are weak.
They never retaliate.
Why would they start now?
they likely will then have to contend with an arguably even more electable DeSantis.
--------
Trump had money and nation support. DeSantis had neither. If they can get Trump they can certainly remove desantis as well. It would be easier.
'Best thing about a Harris/Buttigieg ticket?'
Mayor Pete won't poll well with our black brothers and sister, especially those in the South.
Has to be said...
"Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!"
🍌 Republic
TickTock said...
What I thought I knew about Watergate, and thus the Democratic Party, seems to be unraveling. From Real Clear Politics
Tick, tick, tick - hold on TickTock. Sometimes you have to consider the source of your information - this time it's James Rosen, who started with assumptions not supported by facts; instead we can count on support from the radical media that twisted his thinking.
James Samuel Rosen is an American journalist, television correspondent, and author, who worked as an on-air D.C.-based correspondent for Fox News, and as a correspondent for the Fox News Channel. At the end of 2017, Rosen left Fox News after multiple accusations of sexual harassment from coworkers. He worked at Sinclair Broadcast Group through December 31, 2021, and then joined Newsmax as its chief White House correspondent.
In 2008, Rosen published "The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate," which he described as "not your father’s Watergate."
“John Mitchell denied to the day he died that he ordered the Watergate break-in,” said Mr. Rosen. “It’s going to be a controversial book because I will come to a different conclusion on who ordered the break-in, why, what its purpose was, and who was the real mastermind of the coverup.”
Spoiler alert: It wasn’t Mr. Mitchell - but it was because Mitchell was part of the "Watergate 7" indicted along with a certain unindicted co-conspirator. “Oscar Wilde said that our lone duty to history is continually to rewrite it,” said Mr. Rosen.
So Rosen hasn't changed, which may mean that he is likely still doing his sexual harassment over at Newsmax.
Or the Democrats could simply run the country effectively and count on the voters to give them a second term.
The thing about "lock her up" is that we have actual black letter law crimes by Hilary. Like when she destroyed the records of her meetings as SoS with foreigners, presumably with business before the State Department, at a time when foreigners were giving her hundreds of millions of dollars.
This lawbreaking has been testified to by her assistant, Abidin. That's just one case. She was let off the hook in the email because the FBI determined that she "lacked mens rea" even though intent was completely irrelevant to the statute, and despite the fact that she had been appointed to the job by the US president, and confirmed by the Senate, she was let off because they claimed she didn't understand the job. Can you imagine the DoJ determining that Trump lacked mens rea, and dropping all investigations.
So yeah, we live in a banana republic alright, or is holding officials to the law, as was not done with Hilary, the sign of a "banana republic" in your mind? I guess we dodged a bullet there!
Everything is political!
I thought we were clear on that at least.
Hillary not only broke real laws but tried to have other people arrested and tried for fake crimes. Anybody still remember the travel office case?
Kevin said...
Or the Democrats could simply run the country effectively and count on the voters to give them a second term.
Hey! i drinking coffee when i read that! Now i have to wash this shirt!
In the last days of the Roman republic, office-holders could not be arrested or sued until the moment their term ends.
Politicians not part of the regime faced the Roman version of lawfare the day after they stepped down.
Those with connections found a way around that by being appointed to a new office or a new term ASAP so they couldn't be indicted.
Eventually, this practice stopped when the reign of emperors began. You know, presidents who could issue executive orders about anything and no one in the Senate objected.
Don't know why I'm thinking of this now.
If Trump is tried by a DC or an Atlanta jury he will be convicted. No matter how unreasonable the charges. Anyone who thinks the "Jury and reasonable doubt" will stop this madness is high on something. And its not life.
NR wanted Trump to quit after "Pussygate" and cede the election. They were OK with POTUS Hillary. They were OK with POTUS Biden in 2020, and didn't lift a finger to help trump. THey wanted Trump impeached and convicted in Jan/feb 2021
NR has been funded by Google and other liberal tech firms for over 5 years now. Their comment section if full of leftists/liberals. And they've made the "Conservative case" for legalized abortion and drag queen story hour.
NR is not a conservative magazine and hasn't been for years. They're as conservative as Bill Kristol or Jennifer Rubin.
Whoever wins 2024 gets the keys to the FBI/MLK "secret files" due for release. This should prove interesting.
From Goldsmith's Op-ED:
"...In disregard of advice by many of his closest aides, including Attorney General William Barr, [Trump] falsely claimed that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent and stolen..."
As time has passed, it has become increasingly evident that election officials in cities controlled by Democrats (Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, Wisconsin) have conveniently ignored election regulations constitutionally enacted by their state legislatures.
Historically, this is par for the course in corrupt Democratic cities. Example: The 1960 (JFK vs Nixon) presidential election. Wikipedia:
'...A special prosecutor assigned to the case brought charges against 650 people, who were acquitted by a judge who was a "Daley crony."[14][13] Three Chicago election workers were convicted of voter fraud in 1962 and served short terms in jail.[14] Mazo, the Herald-Tribune reporter, later said that he "found names of the dead who had voted in Chicago, along with 56 people from one house."[14] He found cases of Republican voter fraud in southern Illinois but said that the totals "did not match the Chicago fraud he found."[14]'
NY Post (May 2021):
'...A former Philadelphia election official has pleaded guilty to taking thousands of dollars in bribes to stuff the ballot boxes for Democrats in local races between 2014 and 2016.
Domenick J. DeMuro, 73, a former judge of elections in South Philadelphia, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to deprive Philadelphia voters of their civil rights when he padded the votes for the elected positions, U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain announced Thursday.
“DeMuro fraudulently stuffed the ballot box by literally standing in a voting booth and voting over and over, as fast as he could, while he thought the coast was clear,” said U.S. Attorney McSwain in a statement.'
https://nypost.com/2020/05/21/ex-philly-election-official-pleads-guilty-to-voter-fraud/
Obviously, this wasn't the 2020 Presidential election. But it's a good example of fraudulent election behavior that goes on in big cities controlled by the Democrats.
Trump's legal efforts to challenge the 2000 election results were first placed in the hands of idiot lawyers well past their sell-by dates (the lush Rudi Gulliani and "Release the Kraken" Sidney Powell. They were eventually discharged from their duties, but replaced by an even bigger idiot lawyer, John Eastman (who subsequently asked if he could be put on Trump's pardon list).
This is certainly not evidence of good presidential decision-making.
'If Trump is tried by a DC or an Atlanta jury he will be convicted. No matter how unreasonable the charges. Anyone who thinks the "Jury and reasonable doubt" will stop this madness is high on something. And its not life.'
At least somebody gets it...
The Attorney General doesn't have the power to indict anyone. That belongs to a grand jury. Of course, a DC grand jury will indict a Republican for brushing their teeth.
Oro Valley Tom said...
It's my understanding that until the last decade or less, "defrauding the U.S." meant getting money by illicit means. The use of this charge for election fraud is very recent and, to my layman's mind, does not sound like a legitimate use of the law. For the sake of the country, if you're going after a major figure like Trump, you shouldn't use questionable legal tactics.
I think that the presence of a financial motive remains a key element in deciding whether the US has been defrauded under the terms of the statute in question. In 2020, SCOTUS unanimously (in an opinion written by Justice Kagan) overturned the fraud convictions of the New Jersey "Bridgegate" conspirators Bridget Kelly and William Baroni. The two had falsely claimed that their actions in reducing the number of open lanes on the George Washington Bridge was the result of a traffic study rather than a deliberate effort to punish the mayor of Fort Lee, NJ for not endorsing Chris Christie's reelection bid.
In Kelly v. US, SCOTUS ruled that, without a monetary motive as the primary driver in impelling the two to lie, there was no valid basis for their convictions under the federal fraud statute. Even had there been some financial gain for them, it was of no weight if it was merely an incidental by-product of the scheme that engendered their lies.
The US fraud statutes are “limited in scope to the protection of property rights,” and do not authorize federal prosecutors to “set[ ] standards of disclosure and good government for local and state officials.”
Don't get my hopes up rcocean. Next you will be talking about special circumstances. Do you suppose Dronald would face the gallows with the bold Machismo of Saddam Hussein or the animal terror of Mallomar Quadaffi?
It becomes clearer and clearer why Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court. None of these 3 decisions will be a speed bump if THE decision is made.
Blogger Howard said...
Don't get my hopes up rcocean.
You lefties love to fantasize about killing Republicans.
“When thou goest to woman, take thy whip.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
I think it was Bernard Shaw who said if Nietzsche ever went to a woman with a whip she would get it away from and use it on him.
You are a pussy, Howard. Face it.
Joe Smith said...
'Obviously, Biden doesn't think the R's would retaliate, he doesn't care about Norms and traditions, and and has ZERO desire to unify the country. And the same is true of Pelosi and Schumer and the D's in General.'
They won't retaliate because they are weak.
They never retaliate.
Why would they start now?
Why don't you ask SCOTUS Justice Garland about that? What's that? The GOP retaliated for Bork and kept Garland off the Court?
Or you could ask Justice Gorsuch about it. Because the GOP retaliated for the Dems nuking the filibuster for Dem judges in 2013, by nuking it for GOP SCOTUS nominees in 2017, which is why Gorsuch is on the Court.
Also why Kavanaugh and ACB are on the Court.
And we will retaliate about this, too
The honest truth here is that the Uniparty that thinks it runs this country for its own benefit is in danger of being thrown out of office. Aftermath of that? Who knows...
The Republicans in DC are 100% complicit with what has been going on. The evidence is before you in all the things that have happened. McCain campaigned on repealing Obamacare; what did he do when he won, and there was a Republican majority? Huh. It's almost like the man lied to us all...
Right now, I have a very simple policy: I vote against the incumbent. Always. I don't care who's running; let them be a lesbian transgender Satanist, so long as they've never been in office, I'll vote for them. That little (R) or (D) behind the name? Meaningless; they're all corrupt, and all of them need to go.
All of it is theater; two colluding con artists in DC working the rubes. When enough of us wake the hell up and realize what is going on, neither party is going to survive the aftermath.
Post a Comment