"... in the words of a
New York Times analysis....The defendant has a right to question the legality of the unprecedented charges against him.... But Smith is in an enormous hurry. He has tried everything he can think of to cut corners and bypass procedures to get to trial quickly. The Supreme Court, even though it agreed to expedite the case, has not given him the quick go-ahead he wanted....
He can’t admit why he is moving so fast. It’s obvious to everyone that he is racing to try Trump before the election. But
Justice Department guidelines very clearly say federal prosecutors 'may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.' That is what Smith is doing. He can’t admit his true motivation without admitting that he is
violating long-held Justice Department rules against interference in an election. That did not keep some Biden allies from expressing profound disappointment with the Supreme Court move that will delay the 2020 trial. The crew at MSNBC — the network’s big stars, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O’Donnell — held an
on-air therapy session to vent their frustration and dismay....."
Writes Byron York, in
"Democrats’ double freakout" (Washington Examiner).
It's so ignorant to openly advocate interfering with an election. Have Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O’Donnell not heard of the long-held Justice Department rules? It's ironic too, since the Jack Smith case is about Trump's purported interference with the election.
The "double freakout" refers to the response to new developments: 1. Polls showing Trump ahead in every swing state, 2. The Supreme Court granted cert on the immunity question in the Jack Smith case.
পোস্টগুলি
৬৯টি মন্তব্য:
The MSNBC crew wants to interfere with the election. The Left wants power by any means necessary.
So, it's so ignorant to openly advocate for interfering with an election...
I guess so in some cases.... not in others.
You could face multiple lawsuits and be called a danger to democracy. Or you'll renew your multi-mlllion dollar contract to read DNC talkng points.
Trespassing can be a dismissed misdemeanor or a multi-year sentence.
Protesting can be protesting even with Molotov cocktails and tossng them at a Federal buildng. Or wandering around a federal building can be a horrendous insurrection.
Shoplifting can be a criminal offense or just youths garnering reparations.
I have run out of cheeks to turn. One can hope the left soon discovers what Harry Reid discovered about changing rules.
It would be ironic if Progressives had not already committed genocide on irony and salted the earth surrounding the gravesite. That Althouse suggesting the MSNBC hosts should care about election interference shows how good her heart is and how her hope for humanity endures, despite the complete abandonment of principles by leftists. They are not Liberals anymore. They don’t believe in the Bill of Rights or norms or the Rule of Law. This is why we love Althouse, the site and the person. She stands on principle. It’s dang refreshing.
WE can all see what the Soviet collective NBC assholes are doing.
The cases themselves are election interference, not just the push to get them heard before election day. The involvement of federal actors in promoting the Russian collusion hoax and to suppress the laptop story were election interference. Practically everything these bastards do is election interference. But when THEY do it, it's fine, because Dobbs or something.
If they cared about the DOJ interfering with elections then they would have made an uproar when Obama’s DOJ phone tapped Trump’s campaign in 2016 and pushed a fake dossier. Instead, these people participated in it and are doing so again.
The fun part will be the Trump DOJ bringing charges against Democrats based on the precedents set by Smith.
So is Rachel suffering from TDS or from Mad(c)ow disease?
Biden Derangement Syndrome is peaking early this year.
...unprecedented applications of the law for non-novel circumstances...
OT:
Putin Arrests another journalist
"One can hope the left soon discovers what Harry Reid discovered "
You mean about the hazards of exercise equipment? I share this hope.
Why did Biden and his corrupt DOJ/Jack Smith and all these other cases attempting to destroy Trump - wait until 2023?
Timing. Leftist Putin-like timing.
The practice of prosecutors using "novel applications of law" to charge and pursue politically and/or socially unpopular defendants is a gross violation of due process. Citizens should never be subject to "laws" which exist only as post-facto constructs developed by the creative manipulation of existing law by State agents.
The various Trump prosecutions are the most obvious and extreme examples, but it has been going on for a long time.
Mike.
I don't know about all that but I know she takes "equal protection" and The Bill of Rights seriously. As a matter of principal. Not just a a philisophical viewpoint.
Of course, he’s in a hurry to have the trial before the election. But I’m not sure it’s (fully) because he’s trying to affect the election. It’s also because a sitting president likely has immunity from criminal proceedings while in office. If the trial doesn’t happen before the election, it’s at best stayed for four years while Trump wins. Are timing considerations based on presidential immunity improper under DOJ’s standard? It’s not obvious to me that it is. What seems to be forgotten over and over by those, like York, who dislike every novel application of practices or law to Trump is that Trump did novel things—allegedly trying to stop a lawful election, etc. I’m not saying that Smith is right here (because I don’t follow the matter closely). But I’d like to hear more nuanced analysis, especially from the Trump supporters. It’s just not persuasive to argue that your guy can do all kinds of novel things but the other side can’t. (Same goes for Dems.)
"It's so ignorant to openly advocate interfering with an election. Have Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O’Donnell not heard of the long-held Justice Department rules?"
What if they had? Would it change anything? Smith himself presumably knows the rules and yet he goes full speed ahead. Ignorance seems the least of the prog problems.
In any case, Althouse is right, of course, about the irony of a supposed interference case in fact interfering. But the irony only shows progs' utter calculating cynicism. Rules are for them to use in crushing opponents and amassing power. Even if SCOTUS puts a partial stop to it in this instance, the sheer scale and scope of the prog effort is itself an effective power play, since it puts any antiprog on notice: we can do this to you. As, of course, they have in going after Trump's associates. But lawfare works even if it doesn't work.
All the cases against Trump involve unprecedented issues. The reason is obvious: Selective prosecution/litigation to break Trump and prevent his re-election. It is disheartening to read the comments on lefty websites pretending otherwise.
Democrats have gone all in on prosecuting and incarcerating political opponents, in many cases without the protection of the Bill of Rights. They have corrupted federal law enforcement to the extent that SWAT teams in full regalia are arresting political misdemeanants in their homes and taking them to court in leg irons. They are ecstatic about illegal judicial and bureaucratic orders keeping Trump off the ballot in order to disenfranchise half of their countrymen. Capitol police have fabricated evidence in J6 cases and one of them executed an unarmed woman on J6.
We are not becoming a Banana Republic. We ARE a banana republic. It is wishful thinking to believe these slimeballs will allow Trump to be elected and serve as POTUS. They will kill him or thwart him seditiously.
"Have Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O’Donnell not heard of the long-held Justice Department rules?"
There are no Justice Department rules other than get "them."
You make the category mistake that Maddow et al. are journalists pursuing truth. They are actually entertainers pursuing ratings. To that end they are both consistent and successful.
Novel applications of criminal law? You don't say.
I sense a trend.
Maybe it's the earlier talk about Warner Brothers cartoons, but this lawfare looks a lot like the usual plot from Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner. The start of each story is the building of an elaborate trap and the end is an anvil falling on Wile E./the Democrat's head. The only real difference is that Wile E. is open about his goal--to eat the Roadrunner, while the equally nefarious lawfare warriors, pretend to some higher goal. What they have in common, is that the trap is needlessly complicated and the viewer may not know in advance how exactly it will fail, only that it will fail and it will be comedy gold.
If they waited for two or three years after the election to bring these charges or to even investigate them, what's the harm in waiting a few more months?....Some of these DA's look exceptionally biased and sleazy to boot....The scandal around Willis has got to somehow leak over to the Smith case.
Watching the speech-crime commies on NBC is a mix of frightening and hilarious.
NBC = the joke network for communist imbeciles, and hivemind democratical loyalists.
Rachel Soviet Maddow said on her show - (looking like she was about to burst into tears) that Trump will need to stay in the position of president forever to stay out of prison.
Essentially signaling that if Trump wins - the crook commie anti-constitution left will be waiting to arrest Trump, and will throw Trump in the Gulag ala Putin - for the crime of winning the presidency.
This is NBC.
Have Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O’Donnell not heard of the long-held Justice Department rules?
They do, they just don't care, because Trump. Nothing matters, because Trump. Cut down every law, because Trump.
OT - sort of
The self-proclaimed "anti-disinformation" industry was created by Western intelligence agencies and a small handful of neoliberal billionaires after the 2016 election.
It had and still has only one actual purpose: to justify political censorship of the internet:
Some animals are more equal than others.
The corrupt left could have leveled this lawfare on Trump right after the 2020 election.
why the wait?
Doj guidelines only apply when the AG wants them to. Barr and Sessions constantly used the DOJ guidelines to justify not doing what Trump wanted. Garland and Eric Holder violated the guidelines to help Obama and Biden.
Democrats shout about "Democracy" to cover up their totalitarian, bannana republic behavior. They know the best defense is a good offense. They know the Right will content themselves with "owning the libs" by defending against the charge they are authoritarian. Instead, the Right should be attacking Garland and Biden.
The real question is: Can Trump pardon himself? I don't see why not. Pardon's don't prevent you from being impeached and removed from office. This was the Founding father's method of getting rid of a bad President who committed high crimes.
The first of the 4-5 motions filed a week ago by Trump in his FL case was interesting. They pointed out that Smith is not a Principal Officer under the US Constitution. All Special Counsel, except for Mueller and Smith, have been US Attorneys, who have been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They have power independent of the AG and his DOJ to indict and try cases because of that. Smith and Mueller, on the other hand, are/were direct employees of the AG (Garland for Smith) or DAG (Rosenstein for Mueller). Smith reports directly to AG Garland, because there is nowhere else he fits in the DOJ. And, he has no real independence, whatsoever. That means that Smith is a direct report employee to the 4th ranked Cabinet member in the Biden Administration (and 7th in line of succession to the Presidency). This makes obvious that this is pure election interference by President FJB and AG Garland in this attack on FJB’s extremely likely Republican opponent this coming November. The Republican candidate that FJB is trailing significantly right now in the polls. And, of course, FJB, Garland, and Smith knows that the day that Trump is inaugurated, Smith is fired (and hopefully prosecuted himself). Because he wasn’t hired as a normal federal employee, into a position in the DOJ Org chart, he likely has no job protection whatsoever.
Making things more interesting, Smith’s two prosecutions are apparently being funded off the books, and outside the DOJ’s budget. Instead, the funding is apparently coming from a special out of budget for Independent Prosecutors set up when they were still statutorily defined. How independent is a direct report employee to the AG? He obviously isn’t. So, the funding of the prosecutions is also illegal. It was likely done this way, because of where Smith fits in the DOJ Org chart - in an Informal position right under AG Garland. Garland doesn’t have the sort of money available to him discretionarily that Smith’s prosecutions are costing (roughly $16 million so far). This is highly risky on his part, because it counts as theft of federal monies, is a felony, and those involved are also subject to disgorgement and restitution. Expect a Qui Tam suit against Garland and Smith the day after Trump is re-inaugurated.
So, yes, Garland and Smith are starting to get desperate. This is illegally funded election interference by the AG, against his boss’ major opponent, in an election year, violating DOJ policies and regulations.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you:
It's possible the machine wants Trump to win so the people they have whipped into a frenzy can react to that win with widespread civil disobedience and violence. Measures can then be justified and taken by the machine who will still be in office and in power after the election.
LAW Prof said: "I’m not saying that Smith is right here (because I don’t follow the matter closely). But I’d like to hear more nuanced analysis, especially from the Trump supporters. It’s just not persuasive to argue that your guy can do all kinds of novel things but the other side can’t."
I have a few serious questions for you. (1) What are the "all kinds of novel things" that Trump did? (2) Are you saying that, because they were "novel," they're prosecutable as crimes? If not, what does it matter that they were novel? They question is, were they CRIMINAL?
(3) Wouldn't you agree that prosecuting and attempting to imprison a rival presidential candidate is about the most authoritarian, anti-democratic, and trust-eroding thing a president could do? Here, the Biden administration is not just itself prosecuting Trump, the WH is actively working with at least one STATE prosecutor (Fani Willis) in coordinating their prosecution of Trump. (Remember when presidents used to decline even to comment on ongoing state and local criminal cases out of deference to the rights of the accused? It wasn't that long ago.)
I would not want to be on the other side of Jack Smith in a criminal case. Perhaps Trump has met his match.
Trump “is going to say . . . ‘I thought I won, and it wasn’t fraud’.”
The reason these indictments are important is because Trump tried to break the system: not prosecuting him would send a signal suggesting it can be done again without consequence.
It goes to the question of whether Trump is committed to the democratic process or whether he is hostile to it. This goes to the heart of the problem. The answer is of course obvious: Trump is entirely hostile to the democratic process — he only wants to be the 'winner'.
But there's a political version of the answer and a legal one. The political one has to go through the 2024 election and depends on the opinions of voters, many of whom (the Trump base) are living in an alternative Trump and Fox-based reality. Such people seem impossible to reach by any form of rationality. As things stand, Trump will probably become the Republican candidate and then probably lose. But elections these days are inherently unpredictable.
The legal answer is also pretty clear, in general terms. And yet the law doesn't operate in general terms. On the contrary, it demands very precise definition of key concepts such as 'corruptly' or 'knowingly' that are hard to prove. The battle ahead in court will be tough.
The full nightmare scenario in which Trump is elected and the prosecutions fail is unlikely but still possible. This would likely lead to a deranged 'revenge' presidency. Perhaps over the next few months more voters will be sufficiently alarmed by such a prospect that they'll mobilize enough to stop it happening.
One can hope the left soon discovers what Harry Reid discovered about changing rules.
Our national debt is increasing by a trillion dollars every 100 days. We face a Zimbabwe-style collapse. It may be tomorrow or it may be in ten years, but it's coming fast.
When it comes, we must embrace the lesson of "new rules" that the Left has been teaching us, and take harsh and definitive steps to make sure that our country never again falls under their misrule.
"It’s just not persuasive to argue that your guy can do all kinds of novel things but the other side can’t."
Would you embrace that as a general principle that applies to all targets of criminal charges and their prosecutors? If a person thinks of a novel thing to do, the prosecution ought to have a charge that can cover that action?!
It seems to me, prosecutors must have a statute and criminal statutes must be clear and give people notice what is a crime. That's basic due process. If people think of new ways to do things people think are so wrong they ought to be crimes, legislatures need to pass new laws.
The fun part will be the Trump DOJ bringing charges against Democrats based on the precedents set by Smith.
The DOJ won't do shit, even with direct orders from Trump and his senior leadership figureheads. Like almost all government employees, they are lazy, evil, tyrannical left-wing scum. 95% of them donate money to the Democrats. They are enemies of all normal Americans. They'll do anything they can to drag their feet and sabotage him.
Trump is going to have to fire thousands of them for insubordination, and FUCK the civil service protection rules. Dare them to take it to the Supreme Court, where they will probably be overturned. It's a complete violation of separation of powers. Our Founding Fathers intended that the President should be allowed to fire anyone down to the janitor.
Let’s not forget that Smith was slapped down 9-0 by the Supreme Court in June of 2016 for specious charges against popular Republican Governor Bob McDonnell, but not before bankrupting McDonnell to the tune of $27 million in legal fees and leaving McDonnell, once a serious potential candidate for the 2016 Presidential nomination, with no chance whatsoever of even being considered.
Bob Boyd -
Possible.
That we no longer have confidence in secure and honest vote counting is key.
“The corrupt left could have leveled this lawfare on Trump right after the 2020 election”
York makes a good point, though maybe not the obvious one. This is pure LawFare. Which here means using novel misinterpretions of criminal statutes against political opponents. We first really saw this early in the Trump Administration utilized by the Deep State against Trump’s incoming top officials. They started by criminalizing FARA. Then they used that and a misinterpretation of the § 1001 Obstruction statute to push LTG Flynn out of the NSA post. Coming from the military side of the Intelligence Community, he knew too much, and the attacks on him appear to have been spearheaded by the DOJ’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Branch and the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division (CD), probably not coincidentally the same two organizations behind the raid on Trump’s MAL home, very possibly to seize the binder of documents formally ordered declassified by Trump that implicated both organization in their perfidy, misfeasance, and malfeasance waged against Trump from before he was nominated throughout his term in office.
LTG Flynn was indicted for FARA violations and violating the § 1001 Obstruction statute for “lying” to FBI CD agents. This was only possibly because they had read the Intent and Materiality requirements out of the statute. At one point, he told them that they probably knew better what he said to the Russian Ambassador, because they had the transcripts of his call to the Russian Ambassador, and he didn’t. He was, of course correct, esp since the CD is very likely the organization that routinely wiretaps the Russian Ambassador pursuant to a standing FISA warrant. That there statement negates both of the two elements read out of § 1001. The FBI knowing the contents of the phone call means that his failure to recall the specifics, even if intentional, couldn’t have been Material. They used this LawFare interpretation up until Barr was confirmed as AG, and he abruptly shut down the Mueller investigation, upon their admission that they had had no questions about Russian collusion for a year at that point, and were just running their investigation as a § 1001 perjury trap. Not unexpectedly, it turns out that they had violated DOJ rules and regulations by utilizing a statutory interpretation contrary to the one set by DOJ OLC and binding on all DOJ employees. They also violated DOJ policy not to utilize statutory interpretations that haven’t been validated by by binding court precedent. The criminal FARA and § 1001 prosecutions never made it to trial, because the DOJ wanted to avoid that.
Here is the problem. (5th and 14th Amdt) Due Process requires Notice that the behavior or actions are criminal in question and violate a specific statute. The innovative statutory reinterpretations of criminal statutes utilized by LawFare prosecutions very typically violate that fundamental requirements. Not only is such LawFare prosecutions illegal, it is also unethical. One of the motions filed by Trump in his FL case a week ago was just that, that the charges against him were not legitimate because they were not supported by relevant court precedent, and thus violated Due Process guarantees.
It's charming to think that our host wonders if Lawrence O'Donnell has heard of rules.
I've called this wanker "Lesbian Sex Larry" ever since 2004. One of Dick Cheney's daughters was "out" as a lesbian. So what? Well Larry thought he could use that fact to impugn the Bush Cheney re-election effort. After all, those rubes among the deplorables would probably be disgusted/horrified/revulsed (or whatever) at the thought of lesbian sex.
So Larry--who is almost as smarmy as Gavin Newsom, went on TV (I've forgotten whether he had his own show at the time, or was a guest on someone else's program) and set a world record for the number of times one could say "lesbian sex" in 60 seconds. Larry, out of the goodness of his heart (which is smaller than a dried up peanut) let the viewers know that Dick Cheney's daughter engaged in lesbian sex.
I've hit the mute button whenever I see that little weasel's face ever since.
But I’d like to hear more nuanced analysis, especially from the Trump supporters. It’s just not persuasive to argue that your guy can do all kinds of novel things but the other side can’t. (Same goes for Dems.)
The problem with the case is it has already been decided before:
In her ruling, Jackson wrote that “the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’”
Amy Berman Jackson is a left wing activist. No doubt she would rule differently in this case.
But the precedent was set by Democrats in this matter long ago.
The salient point here is that Smith is in a hurry and wants to cut corners to beat the election deadline.
This alone should get it thrown out of court as his motive is clearly political in nature and not related to 'justice.'
'OT:
Putin Arrests another journalist'
Saw that one coming : )
"If people think of new ways to do things people think are so wrong they ought to be crimes, legislatures need to pass new laws."
Sure.
But repeal two first.
We need fewer laws, not more.
Trump is going to have to fire thousands of them for insubordination, and FUCK the civil service protection rules.
The can't be fired. They can be re-assigned. To Topeka. With no power.
Actually Smith lost 8-0 (Justice Scalia’s death had created a vacancy which was not filled until Trump became President). I don’t think this made Smith feel any better about losing.
" But Justice Department guidelines very clearly say federal prosecutors 'may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.' "
Someone should wash the Justice Department guidelines mouth out with soap.
What do you call a couple thousand DOJ lawyers hanging from lampposts in DC?
"Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O’Donnell not heard of the long-held Justice Department rules?"
I doubt that they have. Don't forget that these are propagandists, not journalists. They have much more in common with Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones than Chet Huntley and David Brinkley.
The timing issues have been discussed on the Advisory Opinions podcast. One of the hosts, Sarah Isgur, worked at DOJ.
There are 3 points she has brought up:
- DOJ can't charge a sitting president. (So if Hur had recommended that President Biden be charged in the documents case, DOJ couldn't.)
- The election timing issue in DOJ has an informal deadline for trials involving election candidates to be over by Labor Day. This makes the Jan 6 case against Trump difficult. The Supreme Court set oral arguments for mid-April. The decision could come as early as mid-May. If so, that doesn't give Trump's attorneys much time to prepare for what could be a long trial, with lots of witnesses. Plus Trump's attorneys may have more motions in their back pocket if they lose before the Supreme Court. The SC has a tough job on this question, trying to draw a line between official acts (which generally have immunity) from private/candidate acts. There might be a trial after the election, especially if Trump loses. If he wins, who knows?
- Once Trump takes office, no trial can be held. However, he can order DOJ to dismiss the charges. The only way to prevent that is for attorneys on the case to resign, but Trump could have DOJ assign it to one of his appointees, who will do his bidding.
The AO hosts game it out like this:
- the Georgia case gets spun out until after the election
- the Jan 6 case is after the election at best, possibly never goes to trial. If there is a conviction, there will be lots of appeals based on the shaky legal basis.
- the NY case on the Stormy Daniels hush money does go to trial, Trump gets convicted (NY jury), likely reversal on appeal due to novel application of the laws.
- the classified documents case is still on to start May 20. Trump's team is trying to postpone it a year. This case has, if the DOJ charging document is correct, the best chance for a conviction that will stand up. My reading of it is that he is guilty, if the allegations are proved in court.
What Althouse said at 10:46 is a better statement of what I was trying to say at 8:27.
Giving a prosecutor the authority to charge and prosecute based on "novel" theories and applications of law is a fundamental violation of due process. It is basically giving the State carte blanche to prosecute people for non-crimes. (RICO is and has been the primary means of "criminalizing" whatever it is the State wants to criminalize, without benefit of legislation).
This is true whether the alleged "criminal" is Donald Trump, Alex Navalny, Don Gotti or Malcolm X.
Where is the ACLU in all this? (Rhetorical).
If you think a novel action requires a criminal prosecution by stretching a law interpretation beyond its original intent, LawProf, then you have lost the plot of what justice means. If you think what Trump did should be against the law, then pass a law specifically tailored to outlaw that novel action, but don't try to twist the law against the novel action just so you can target Trump specifically.
Let me try it this way: what would you have thought in 2019 if a Presidential candidate asked the sitting Vice President and various Representatives and Senators to not confirm the electoral slate of his opponents because he believed the election was stolen? Against the law, or not at that time, in your opinion? If you reply, "I don't know," then, as a self-described "LawProf" tell us how Trump was supposed to know- different lawyers at the time told him different opinions on the matter- he is being charged by the DoJ for listening to some opinions but not others.
I note for record that I wrote both of my senators, my congressman, and Vice President Mike Pence to encourage them to refuse to confirm the election of Joe Biden until a thorough investigation of the mail-in-ballot fraud was conducted. Did I break the same law that his opponents claim Trump broke?
Looking to 2028, if Trump wins 2024, would be to focus on the policies he was elected to execute. That would set positive stage for next America First follow-on candidate, plus disarm the exploding heads (potentially). He would need to remove current key people during 2024 transition. How many not clear.
“- the classified documents case is still on to start May 20. Trump's team is trying to postpone it a year. This case has, if the DOJ charging document is correct, the best chance for a conviction that will stand up. My reading of it is that he is guilty, if the allegations are proved in court”
The charging document is full of lies. It assumes that the documents in question are still classified. They likely are not. The President has plenary authority to declassify documents. Plenary and unreviewable. He effectively did that when he ordered them shipped to MAL while still in office. And they also assert that he had unauthorized access to them. Again, he has plenary power to make the decision - not the DOJ and NARA. That has never been seriously questioned until now, but the Clinton case settled the matter. He didn’t have originals, but rather marked copies of originals, and had ever legal right to their possession. It was lying on the part of the DOJ because they knew all this, and also knew that they couldn’t indict under statutes that hadn’t been validated by binding court precedent. They ignored those aspects of the case, even going so far as referring repeatedly to “Classified Documents”. And, yes, the indictment also violates Trump’s Due Process rights under the 5th Amdt, as outlined above.
Bob Boyd said...
Here's a conspiracy theory for you:
"It's possible the machine wants Trump to win so the people they have whipped into a frenzy can react to that win with widespread civil disobedience and violence. Measures can then be justified and taken by the machine who will still be in office and in power after the election."
***************
Of course, the ultimate irony will be when the machine uses the widespread violence it fostered to disallow Trump from taking office.
Game. Set. Match.
The can't be fired. They can be re-assigned. To Topeka. With no power
Topeka is too easy. Assign them to Nome. They won’t go…
Yancey Ward wrote:
"I note for record that I wrote both of my senators, my congressman, and Vice President Mike Pence to encourage them to refuse to confirm the election of Joe Biden until a thorough investigation of the mail-in-ballot fraud was conducted. Did I break the same law that his opponents claim Trump broke?"
************
Yes. On Monday the FBI will order you to report to its nearest office--wearing only shorts and flip-flops---to be arrested, put into an orange jump suit, manacled at the wrists and ankles, and perp-walked past a pack of press jackals.
Because no one is above the law, pal!
Edmund said...
- the classified documents case is still on to start May 20. Trump's team is trying to postpone it a year. This case has, if the DOJ charging document is correct, the best chance for a conviction that will stand up. My reading of it is that he is guilty, if the allegations are proved in court.
Trump: "I declassified all documents in my possession before leaving the presidency."
Okay, case over. Period. End of discussion. Because- no possible way to prove he didn't.
The funny thing is that it was Smith, in the first place, who sought cert in an effort to bypass the circuit court of appeals and thereby get to a trial faster. The Supreme Court insisted on allowing the circuit court to do its job and then, because the circuit court ruled against immunity for Trump, Smith no longer had an interest in the Supreme Court's deciding the matter. Now, he suddenly wanted the Supreme Court to deny cert and to let the circuit court ruling stand. But it was too late for that obvious ploy to work, given how crystal clear it had become that his top priority was simply to get Trump to trial before the election.
My reading of it is that he is guilty, if the allegations are proved in court.
It's comical that you think a D.C. jury requires anything to be "proved" before convicting a Republican.
Topeka is too easy. Assign them to Nome. They won’t go…
They would be well served on North Sentinel Island.
https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/green-travel/worlds-most-secluded-island-north-sentinel
Rachel Maddow could retire in a heartbeat and sell her own brand of Rachelwear: a sort of drab, grey, Maoist collection which she favors.
“What do you call a couple thousand DOJ lawyers hanging from lampposts in DC?”
Baby steps.
“I've hit the mute button whenever I see that little weasel's face ever since.”
Stop the hammering, skeptical voter! 😉
Mark, you are correct. Biden supporters ARE deranged. Look in the mirror.
It's not just liberal talking heads calling for election interference, Nikki Haley is saying it loud and proud.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন