Author Topic: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War  (Read 37815 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18318
    • View Profile
Lawfare, Trump Defense, NDA is a personal expense
« Reply #400 on: April 15, 2024, 07:40:10 AM »
https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/15/trumps-strongest-new-york-defense-has-nothing-to-do-with-alvin-bragg-or-judge-merchan/

Like buying a suit or whitening your teeth, you're doing it to get ready for the campaign but it is a personal expense.

If he had done it the other way around, taken a personal expense as a campaign expense, they would have scrutinized that as well.

Show me the man, I'll show you the crime.

The charge was elevated from misdemeanor to felony because it was committed to cover up a crime, that wasn't a crime.

The only real question for the court is can they find one honest juror.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2024, 10:30:25 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18568
    • View Profile
The entire left wing media mafia
« Reply #401 on: April 15, 2024, 08:34:13 AM »
in unison:

"Historic"

me:

the rule of law[yers]!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18568
    • View Profile
How crazy are these poll #s
« Reply #402 on: April 16, 2024, 05:16:00 AM »
AP-NORC Poll: 7 in 10 Side With Trump in New York Criminal Case

[not stated is probably 7 of 10 Manhattan New Yorkers side AGAINST Trump]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/trump-trial-indictment/2024/04/16/id/1161140/

" Yet, a cloud of doubt hangs over all the proceedings. Only about 3 in 10 Americans feel that any of the prosecutors who have brought charges against Trump are treating the former president fairly. And only about 2 in 10 Americans are extremely or very confident that the judges and jurors in the cases against him can be fair and impartial. "

YET :

" Still, half of Americans would consider Trump unfit to serve as president if he is convicted of falsifying business documents to cover up payments to a woman who said he had an affair with."

Of course, it is the second part the Dems are so giddy about.  I don't get the numbers - makes no sense.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69557
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #403 on: April 16, 2024, 06:44:49 AM »
Normalcy bias.

Acceptance that the integrity of the American legal system is a farce in many jurisdictions comes hard , , ,

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18318
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #404 on: April 16, 2024, 08:01:45 AM »
Trump accused of tearing the Do Not Remove tag off his mattress, first time this has ever been elevated to a felony.


https://nypost.com/2024/04/14/opinion/a-serial-perjurer-will-try-to-prove-an-old-misdemeanor-against-trump-in-an-embarrassment-for-the-new-york-legal-system/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69557
    • View Profile
WSJ: Lawfare via Sarbox
« Reply #405 on: April 16, 2024, 11:14:41 AM »
The Jan. 6 Riot Reaches the Supreme Court
Did the feds go too far in charging rioters with obstructing Congress under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
By The Editorial Board
Follow
April 15, 2024 5:30 pm ET


The people who breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, are being held accountable, and attempts to rebrand them as patriotic choirboys are a sign of the bizarre political times. Yet is it unduly stretching the law to prosecute Jan. 6 rioters using the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002?

The Supreme Court will consider this Tuesday in Fischer v. U.S., and rooting for the government to lose requires no sympathy for the MAGA mob. Joseph Fischer says in his brief that he arrived late to the Capitol, spent four minutes inside, then “exited,” after “the weight of the crowd” pushed him toward a police line, where he was pepper sprayed. The feds tell an uglier tale.

Mr. Fischer was a local cop in Pennsylvania. “Take democratic congress to the gallows,” he wrote in a text message. “Can’t vote if they can’t breathe..lol.” The government says he “crashed into the police line” after charging it. Mr. Fischer was indicted for several crimes, including assaulting a federal officer. If true, perhaps he could benefit from quiet time in a prison library reading the 2020 court rulings dismantling the stolen election fantasy.

Sarbanes-Oxley, though? Congress enacted Sarbox, as it’s often called, in the wake of Enron and other corporate scandals. One section makes it a crime to shred or hide documents “corruptly” with an intent to impair their use in a federal court case or a Congressional investigation. That provision is followed by catchall language punishing anybody who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes” such a proceeding. Now watch, as jurists with Ivy degrees argue about the meaning of the word “otherwise.”

In Mr. Fischer’s view, the point of this law is to prohibit “evidence spoliation,” so the “otherwise” prong merely covers unmentioned examples. The government’s position is that the catchall can catch almost anything, “to ensure complete coverage of all forms of corrupt obstruction.” The feds won 2-1 at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Yet two judges were worried how far this reading would permit prosecutors to go. Judge Justin Walker, who joined the majority, said his vote depended on a tight rule for proving defendants acted “corruptly.”

Judge Gregory Katsas filed the vigorous dissent. The government “dubiously reads otherwise to mean ‘in a manner different from,’ rather than ‘in a manner similar to,’” he argued. The obstruction statute “has been on the books for two decades and charged in thousands of cases—yet until the prosecutions arising from the January 6 riot, it was uniformly treated as an evidence-impairment crime.”

A win for the feds, Judge Katsas warned, could “supercharge comparatively minor advocacy, lobbying, and protest offenses into 20-year felonies.” For example: “A protestor who demonstrates outside a courthouse, hoping to affect jury deliberations, has influenced an official proceeding (or attempted to do so, which carries the same penalty).” Or how about a Congressman (Rep. Jamaal Bowman) who pulls a fire alarm that impedes a House vote?

Special counsel Jack Smith has charged Donald Trump with obstructing a Congressional proceeding, and he says Mr. Trump’s “fraudulent electoral certifications” in 2020 are covered by Sarbox, regardless of what the Supreme Court does in Fischer. The other piece of context is that prosecutors going after Jan. 6 rioters have charged obstruction in hundreds of cases. But if those counts are in jeopardy, don’t blame the Supreme Court.

Presumably many of those defendants could be on the hook for disorderly conduct or other crimes, and the feds can throw the book at them. What prosecutors can’t do is rewrite the law to create crimes Congress didn’t.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18318
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18568
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #407 on: April 19, 2024, 09:02:38 AM »
A jury of his political enemies peers

Like in the old South, a black man facing an all white jury.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18318
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #408 on: April 19, 2024, 09:18:47 AM »
A jury of his political enemies peers

Like in the old South, a black man facing an all white jury.

So true.  The zip code of the trial should not determine guilt or innocence.

He has no chance at unanimous acquittal,  so will be stained with hung jury or felon no matter what happens.

I'm not against charging a former office holder with a crime,  but it should be rock solid, crystal clear case to take any American from private life to incarceration, and this is not.  It must be a crime that ANYONE who committed that act would be charged with.  Clearly this is not.

Judge could have ruled the state had plenty of time to try this case not during the campaign.  He did not.

A state conviction cannot be pardoned by a President....
« Last Edit: April 19, 2024, 09:23:18 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18318
    • View Profile
Politics by Lawfare, NY Trump Trial Jurors
« Reply #409 on: April 21, 2024, 09:27:57 AM »
Here I am, posting analysis from Slate:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-the-trump-jurors-think-of-the-former-president/ar-AA1nkQmt

https://slate.com/tag/bragg-trial

Jurors chosen are the ones who best hide their views and most persuasively say they will keep an open mind to the facts and the law.

They all seem to get their news from the New York Times.  Does anyone inside of NY know that is the radical left wing publication that led the phony Russian collusion story for 2 years and never recanted it - among all their other left wing activisms.

Every juror is either from NY or moved to this most urban, most liberal jurisdiction by choice.

There were limits on how many objections the defense team could make.  Every time they block one, one more comes up from the same pool.

My take is that there may be one, two at most who stand strong against a wrongful guilty verdict.  A not guilty verdict is not possible.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69557
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #410 on: April 21, 2024, 04:06:26 PM »
There are at least two attorneys on the jury.  Perhaps one or both with have the mental coherence to grasp the incoherent inanity of the charges.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69557
    • View Profile
FO:
« Reply #411 on: April 22, 2024, 10:07:59 AM »


(4) PUNISHMENT OF TRUMP OFFICIALS, SUPPORTERS CONTINUES: A three judge panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas State Bar can continue its administrative actions against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, alleging that Paxton made false representations to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn 2020 election results.

Former Trump attorney John Eastman said he has been “debanked” by Bank of America and USAA while facing possible disbarment in California.

Why It Matters: National and state level Democrats punishing former Trump officials through disbarment, cutting off post-government job tracks in media, and now “debanking” increase the chance of a counter elite developing in the United States. These actions also very likely increase the chances of future Trump administration officials taking more radical policy positions. Prospective officials concerned about post-administration employment or being punished legally or extra-legally would likely be deterred from serving. – R.C.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18318
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #412 on: April 22, 2024, 11:51:55 AM »
There are at least two attorneys on the jury.  Perhaps one or both with have the mental coherence to grasp the incoherent inanity of the charges.


Yes, very possible.  OTOH, lawyers are 93% Democrat [or something like that] and perhaps able to find reasons to support their desired outcome.

What I would look for are the 'double haters', or people who despise Trump but don't appreciate this tactic against him.  The lawyers might fit that.  People who never liked Trump, detest him personally, but start to realize the other side is f'd up too.  Like you say, maybe they can look past a political and personal bias and rule on the merits of the case and the meaning of the law.  Depending on what they see in the case, an 'honest' Democrat could vote to acquit on these charges and still want him to lose in the election.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18318
    • View Profile
NYT Today!

Boston University Law Professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman:

About a year ago, when Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, indicted former President Donald Trump, I was critical of the case and called it an embarrassment. I thought an array of legal problems would and should lead to long delays in federal courts.

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the Manhattan D.A. has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.  (Source: nytimes.com)


Exactly what WE said.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2024, 12:08:10 PM by DougMacG »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18568
    • View Profile
SALACIOUS
« Reply #416 on: April 26, 2024, 04:57:52 AM »
TV lawyers favorite word lately,

I've heard it used more in the past month then my entire life.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-tabloid-publisher-to-face-more-questions-in-trump-hush-money-trial/ar-AA1nIjKN?ocid=msedgntphdr&cvid=04a36b6ef50c4ef4d1bfbc4778937724&ei=18

Democrat lawyers taking over the Nat Enquirer and publishing their unpublished stories.
Great fodder for network TV, but totally ridiculous as a legal matter.  Corporate profits galore.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18568
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #418 on: April 28, 2024, 03:52:54 PM »
Another thought about this:

We will not hear any "historians" other then VDH who will ever mention this when speaking of Obama.

Where are all the conservative historians???  Other then VDH I don't recall seeing any.

Doris Kearns Goodwin - no (long time liberal)
Jon Meacham - no  (speechwriter for Biden and fires from even MSNBC reportedly for not disclosing that but probably some other reason)

Michael Beschloss - no
Sean Wilentz - no (although in wikipedia he did once criticize O for Ayers and Wrightbut also calls DJT the worst president in history)

Allida Black - no  (author of Modern American Queer History and of course a Clinton advocate)

Anne Applebaum - no  ( in Wiki - she is on the board of Renew Democracy Initiative Look at the members of the Board - a who's who of Trump haters and TDS types:  Senator Bob Kerrey, Annie Duke, Igor Kirman, Linda Chavez, Michael Steele, Congressman Mickey Edwards and Retired Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. RDI's advisory board includes Anne Applebaum, Bill Kristol, Bret Stephens, Dan Benton, Daniel Hurwitz, Eric Wolf, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, Lisa Berg, Lucy Caldwell, Max Boot, Mark Lasswell, Rachel Vindman, Rina Shah, General Stanley McChrystal, and Whitney Haring-Smith.[7])


If interested, you can read more about these "authorities" here:

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/historians-saving-democracy/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1917
    • View Profile
Chutzpah on Parade?
« Reply #419 on: April 29, 2024, 11:28:41 AM »
If this pans out it will explain a lot, like why Jack Smith is resisting the release of these sorts of discovery timelines. Nut graf: post 2020 election Trump told by General Services Administration to deal with 6 pallets of documents, Trump has docs shipped to his digs in Florida, and soon thereafter is charged with housing classified docs, with many of the apparently found in the boxes marked classified that the GSA told Trump they had to ship to him:

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1784226958127014361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1784226958127014361%7Ctwgr%5E336b541f0314111ab46352ceff6bafa420cef1c6%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fmatt-margolis%2F2024%2F04%2F28%2Fnew-bombshell-evidence-emerges-was-trump-set-up-in-classified-docs-saga-n4928572

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1917
    • View Profile
Yes Virginia, there is a Vast Anti-Trump Legal Conspiracy
« Reply #420 on: April 29, 2024, 01:31:54 PM »
2nd post. Hmm, so it appears there is a weekly Friday meeting of various anti-Trump zealots to hash out the various lawfare strategies in play at any given moment:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/23/anti-trump-legal-pundits-calls-00153300

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18318
    • View Profile
Politics by Lawfare, Byron York
« Reply #421 on: May 07, 2024, 07:20:28 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69557
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #422 on: May 07, 2024, 09:02:13 AM »
 :-o :-o :-o

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18568
    • View Profile
NY prosecutors in Trump trial
« Reply #423 on: May 07, 2024, 11:42:38 PM »
let's see:

one Fordham Law school

one Yale Law school

and four Harvard Law school (including Bragg)

graduates

https://abcnews.go.com/US/members-manhattan-das-team-prosecuting-trump/story?id=98434088

did 4 have classes with Larry Tribe?   and none with Dershowitz?

so all these supposed IVy lawyers think this is a good case.    :roll:

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18318
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #424 on: May 08, 2024, 07:05:30 AM »
The real reason for the Trump trial is to put the salacious alleged details of Trump's infidelity in front of the public eye again. Slate headline says as much.

Meanwhile Democrats put forward purists like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Joe Biden.

When will we see the personnel record of Tara Reide?  (never)

By the way Slate, Stormy Daniels is not her name.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/stormy-daniels-testimony-awful-meaning.html
"Stormy Daniels’ Turn as a Witness Brings Home What This Trial Is About"

No, at least legally, that is not what this trial is about.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/07/opinion/judge-allows-stormy-daniels-to-give-irrelevant-salacious-testimony-just-to-humiliate-trump/


« Last Edit: May 08, 2024, 07:10:30 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18568
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #425 on: May 08, 2024, 07:42:23 AM »
re reading my post 2 posts ago I forgot to add 2 prosecutors from Columbia Law

so basically an IVY league team sent to assassinate Trump.....

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1917
    • View Profile
The Sheer Weight of Slime
« Reply #426 on: May 08, 2024, 08:59:00 AM »
A fine survery of the sundry lawfare tendrils Trump is enduring:

America is On Trial, and Amerika is Too
A guilty verdict for one, is a guilt verdict for the other

JUPPLANDIA
MAY 08, 2024
It’s easy to get bored of talking (or even reading) about the Trump trials.

And it’s easy to get lost in how much there is to say. The sheer weight of the thing. The size of it. The number of charges. The number of crimes (by which I mean both the number of ‘crimes’ which don’t apply but which Trump is charged with, and the number of actual crimes committed by those bringing these cases against him).

Jupplandia is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.


Subscribe
But I think its important to still give a summary of what those cases are. I’ll explain why after the summary.

First there were the E. Jean Carroll civil cases, in which an eccentric Democrat columnist fantasized about an imaginary sexual assault for which she could provide no evidence and which was supposed to have occurred decades earlier, and was then funded by a major Democrat donor to bring cases in a Democrat city before Democrat judges and juries to decide whether a Republican was guilty of this crime for which no evidence existed. This was the one that decided that the statute of limitations no longer applies when Democrats decide it doesn’t apply, and that crimes can be proven without the existence of any proof.

Both of these were important principles to establish for the other cases to be able to proceed.

In a surprising twist, Democrat Judge Kaplan allowed a Manhattan Democrat jury to find Trump liable for both sexual assault and defamation. In a following ruling he decided that Trump had defamed E. Jean Carroll by pointing out that she is a liar, and in a further surprise a Democrat jury then decided that Trump should pay a total of 83.3 million dollars to the woman who lied about him for the crime of calling her a liar.

Now apparently settled with another enormous fine (Trump has agreed to pay 175 million dollars, reduced from the original theft of 350 million) was the New York civil case (the Real Estate Fraud Case) prosecuted by Letitia James and presided over by Judge Engoron. This was the one that saw a Judge with an established hatred of Trump rule that expert testimony regarding real estate valuation could be dismissed with a judicial slander of the witness, that normal business practice in real estate is fraud when conducted by Donald Trump, and that fraud can still be present when the supposedly defrauded ‘victims’ all state that no fraud occurred.

Following that there’s the Documents Case, that Jack Smith is prosecuting and that Judge Cannon is presiding over. (“On June 8, 2023, former President Donald Trump and his aide Waltine Nauta were indicted by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida on charges related to the alleged mishandling of classified documents at Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago. A superseding indictment was unsealed on July 27, 2023, which charged an additional defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, and included three additional charges against Trump of evidence tampering, willfully retaining national defense information, and lying to investigators”).

Judge Cannon stands out as pretty much the only judge overseeing these cases who wasn’t a Democrat pick (McAfee was appointed by Kemp, but doesn’t seem to be a declared Republican. If he is, its from the same RINO wing that went along with Trump’s impeachments), and entirely coincidentally of course this is the case where it has already been established in court that the FBI investigators tampered with the key evidence and that the Democrat prosecutors lied to the judge. During the unprecedented FBI raid that acquired the ‘evidence’ for this case, the FBI took it upon themselves to spread documents around on the floor before taking ‘incriminating’ pictures of them (On June 9th, 2023 Trump posted on Truth Social that the scattered files had been “staged” by the FBI. As usual, he was right). Those pictures were publicly released (who does that with real evidence in a real case?) to justify the raid.

To make those pictures just how they wanted them, they attached confidential, top secret sheets to the documents, which they had created. They have now had to admit that they did this, and that when the prosecution told Judge Cannon that the documents being used as evidence were in the condition they were found in, this was a lie. Scans of the contents and the current contents do not match. There is in fact therefore no way to prove that the documents haven’t been more thoroughly tampered with, just as if seized drugs used as evidence had been handled and moved around by unrecorded agents instead of stored, unchanged, in an evidence locker where every interaction with them is recorded. On top of that, the documents may come from a batch of documents (SIX pallet loads) that Trump and his assistants were forced to take by repeated demands to do so (from General Services Administration).

There’s also the Hush Money Case relating to Stormy Daniels, prosecuted by Alvin Bragg which Judge Merchan is presiding over. (“The indictment includes 34 counts of felony falsification of business records primarily related to the alleged hush money payments”). Judge Merchan is, and hold your surprise on this one, a Democrat judge with an established hatred of Trump. 

Next there’s the Jan 6th Conspiracy Case, which includes 2 counts of obstruction and 2 of criminal conspiracy based on the idea that Trump encouraged Jan 6th and plotted to overturn a legitimate result. That one is the one where the Supreme Court is now pondering the issue of Presidential immunity, but the original case was again prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith and is presided over by Judge Chutkan.

Finally, of the major cases still active there is the Fulton County, Georgia case (the RICO Conspiracy Case) which is prosecuted by Democrat District Attorney Fani Willis and presided over by Judge McAfee. This is the one that casts all of the efforts to acknowledge massive electoral fraud as a series of criminal racketeering acts under legislation designed for the prosecution of organised crime syndicates. The counts include things like deciding that a President or members of his administration questioning fraud is guilty of the crime of impersonating a public official. This was also the case in which we found out that the prosecutor hired her boyfriend on a very generous publicly funded salary to work on the case and also enjoyed romantic trips with him before lying about the nature of their relationship.

If you want excellent commentary on these cases individually or collectively, Julie Kelly has been providing this, in detail, on her Substack. If you want a summary of them all with links to mainstream media articles (for what that is worth, if anything…it at least shows us what insane justifications they are constructing) then the Lawfare website (at lawfaremedia.org>current-projects>the-trump-trials) provides an incredibly helpful listing of all of them.

So why should we still be talking about these cases, why should we still be interested? Half of them are mired in legal back and forth and are subject to long delays. One is awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on Presidential immunity.

One of the things I’ve noticed when discussing any of the real crimes occurring at present is how the sheer magnitude of what is being done sometimes makes addressing it difficult. Let’s say our subject is the dishonesty of the mainsteam media in relation to Trump. Where do we start? Do we talk about the way they pressed Russian collusion for years? Do we talk about that? But then that leads us into related facts, like John Brennan presenting Obama in a meeting with the knowledge that this collusion narrative was a fiction invented by a probable Russian agent working for Hilary Clinton. That then evokes the memory of over 50 intelligence agents lying about Russian collusion as well in a public statement.

Or do we talk about how ‘drink bleach’ and ‘there are good Nazis’ were both lies presented as confirmed truths by the mainstream media?

Or are we then led into a wider discussion of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ and how none of the people deploying these terms are themselves truthful? Do we mention the suppression of Lab Leak during Covid, or science advisors distorting the evidence being presented to Trump and then boasting about it in their books?

With the ‘lawfare’ being conducted at present, which one of the 91 charges do we talk about first? If we want to show prosecutorial and judicial malpractice, we are overly spoilt for choice. No one article is going to be able to cover how much of a crook Jack Smith is, let alone Smith, Willis and Bragg together with Engoron, Chutkan and Merchan as a group. Every one of these people are people who should be recused from involvement in cases regarding a political opponent they personally detest. In each and every case there is boundless evidence of conflicts of interest from those bringing and hearing the cases, ones which make the very idea that the process we are witnessing is ‘justice’ obscenely laughable.

How can a judge fairly preside over the case of a person they hate with every fiber of their being, a person they hate more personally and deeply than they ever hate drug dealers, rapists or child abusers appearing in court before them?

How can a prosecutor be allowed to bring cases against political opponents when they have campaigned on the basis of getting that person, by ANY means, when they have publicly made that declaration as part of their own political promise?

How on Earth is anyone supposed to pretend that such a political promise, when it manifests as a legal reality, is a legitimate response to a real crime,rather than a purely political witch hunt? Of course it is a purely political witch hunt….it was a campaign pledge!

How is any of this allowed to go this far, when at every stage the basic legal requirements of any approach towards actual justice are being deliberately and continuously set aside?

Freedom from unjust, politically motivated fines and punishments, and from cruel and unusual treatment? Set aside.

The requirement that there be some actual, untampered with, legitimate evidence on which a case comes to trial? Set aside.

The statute of limitations and its role protecting people from baseless accusations brought forward years after all evidence has vanished? Set aside.

The right to an unbiased jury, selected without political intent, in a place where justice is at least a possibility? Set aside.

Client attorney privilege? Set aside.

Freedom of speech and the right to defend oneself against accusers, including the right to point out their connections and conflicts of interest? Set aside by gagging orders.

The Presidential Records Act and all prior precedent on the treatment of former Presidents relating to documents? Set aside.

The actual purpose of the legislation you are using, like the RICO Act? Set aside.

The right to expect that the statutes used against you are being used as they have always been used, rather than that they are twisted into entirely novel interpretations with no basis in law? Set aside.

The expectation of equality before the law, and that the same actions require the same responses and the same justice? Set aside.

The difference between a misdemeanor and a felony? Set aside.

The need to prove an underlying crime and announce what crime is actually being responded to in order to change an accounting error into a felony ? Set aside.

How do you take the documents case seriously, for example, when Joe Biden can take documents as Vice President he had no right to take, leave them in his car or scattered around multiple locations,unprotected and unsecured, for years, and at the same time that Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump, Joe Biden gets a free pass on that? And Mike Pence does too? And Bill Clinton did? No amount of mainstream media MSNBC articles beginning ‘No, These Cases Aren’t the Same’ excuses that double standard away.

How do you take fraud cases based on two words in a private ledger seriously, when the prosecution won’t tell you or the judge what the actual crime is?

So where do you start with all this, where do you end?

Well, in a way, it is better to talk about the generality than the specifics, not because the details favor the other side, but because there are a million details that do not. There is too much criminality, selectivity, hypocrisy and outright tyranny in the process to ever be able to mention it all.

And the generality is that all of this only occurs in a system that is already utterly corrupt. It’s tempting to say broken, but that’s not accurate. It’s doing what it now exists to do, which is enforce a regime and crush all opposition to the regime. Those holding the levers of power are directing it this way, on this path. This is where they want to go.

The form of a US justice system still exists. It’s simply that all the justice has been removed from it.

Yes, Donald Trump is on trial. But that’s not really the big picture, as unjust and as disgusting as this treatment of Trump undoubtedly is.

America itself is on trial. The old America is on trial. The America of equal justice, and the America of decent values, and the America of any hope at all that any part of this nation remains a shining dream instead of a soiled nightmare.

And Amerika is on trial too. The Amerika of the regime, the Amerika of the nightmare. The Amerika that acts like a banana republic, the Amerika of One Party Rule, the Amerika where one side of politics and its supporters stole an election, imprisoned protesters and dissidents without trial and finally made questioning electoral theft a new crime with which to imprison the old President it removed.

There are two nations on the same soil, and neither can abide the other.

The verdict against Trump will be the verdict on both of them. Is it a place of equal justice where people have the right to vote for the candidate and policies they want? Or is it going to be, for a long time to come, a tyranny where all the Third World rules apply? That’s already not being decided by an election, even a rigged one. It’s being decided in court.

If Trump wins, America wins. If Amerika wins, Trump has lost.

But so has America. At that point, it will have lost just about everything that made it America in the first place.

https://jupplandia.substack.com/p/america-is-on-trial-and-amerika-is?r=2k0c5&triedRedirect=true

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18568
    • View Profile
Deep state trying to squeeze another 100 mill out of DJT
« Reply #427 on: May 11, 2024, 07:04:51 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69557
    • View Profile
ET: Eastman still in the fight-- strong piece
« Reply #428 on: Today at 05:16:10 AM »
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/suspended-de-banked-but-not-sorry-john-eastman-tenfold-more-convinced-of-illegalities-in-2020-post-5632320


Suspended, De-Banked, But Not Sorry: John Eastman ‘Tenfold’ More Convinced of Illegalities in 2020

By Brad Jones
|April 24, 2024
Updated:
May 03, 2024
LOS ANGELES—As the sunlight creeps in the windows of a downtown hotel lobby just blocks away from a courtroom in California, constitutional scholar John Eastman is unfazed, even jovial, in spite of having just spent 10 weeks on trial defending his license to practice law—and in spite of a ruling from a State Bar of California judge recommending that his law license be revoked.

Last summer, the State Bar charged Mr. Eastman, the former dean of Chapman University Law School, with 11 counts of misconduct related to his role in representing former President Donald Trump after the 2020 presidential election.

But Mr. Eastman told The Epoch Times in an exclusive interview on April 5 that he has no regrets about representing President Trump or alleging fraud and questioning the election results.

“What I saw at the time raised real serious questions in my mind about the validity of the election,” he said.

Since then, Mr. Eastman said, his investigation has confirmed his suspicions “tenfold.”

Mr. Eastman, who was accused of not having the evidence to back up those allegations, said he will appeal Judge Yvette Roland’s March 27 ruling recommending disbarment, but in the meantime, his law license has been suspended on “involuntary inactive enrollment,” which means he can’t practice law in California.

He’s still an active member of the District of Columbia Bar, where he is currently representing U.S. Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in a federal case against the California cities of Anaheim and Riverside for allegedly conspiring to suppress and shut down their political rallies, infringing on their constitutional rights to free speech.

“Some federal courts, as long as you’re licensed someplace, you’re allowed to continue. If you’re suspended in any place, even if you have active licenses elsewhere, there is a process to go through on whether they’re going to suspend you as well,” Mr. Eastman said.


In 2020, Mr. Eastman was invited to join an election integrity working group, formed in anticipation of post-election litigation in connection with the presidential election, organized at President Trump’s request, and on Dec. 6, 2020, Mr. Eastman received a formal engagement letter for legal services defining the scope of the agreement.

Democrat-appointed Judge Roland ruled that Mr. Eastman broke ethics rules by advancing President Trump’s challenges to the integrity of the 2020 election.

The judge stated in her ruling that “despite compelling evidence against him, ... Eastman remains defiant, refusing to acknowledge any impropriety whatsoever in his actions surrounding his efforts to dispute the 2020 presidential election results.”

“His lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his misconduct is deeply troubling,” she wrote.

“Eastman continues to hold the view that his statements were factually and legally justified. He demonstrated disdain for these proceedings by characterizing them as a political persecution, claiming that the disciplinary charges against him contained false and misleading statements, and that those who brought them should themselves be disbarred.

“[His] complete denial of wrongdoing, coupled with his attempts to discredit legitimate disciplinary proceedings are concerning.”


Mr. Eastman stopped short of criticizing the judge, but he noted that Rachel Alexander, a reporter at the Arizona Sun who covered the trial extensively, pointed out several examples of bias in the case and questioned the rationale behind the ruling, which dismissed the evidence Mr. Eastman brought forth.

“You would think that the ruling would at least confront the evidence and explain why it wasn’t sufficient,” he said. “What was the point? Not even mentioned!”

Mr. Eastman said he has solid grounds for appeal because Judge Roland dispensed with the First Amendment arguments “without really grappling with binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent.”

“This is an unprecedented move. It was initiated by hyper-partisan leftists that are trying to attack President Trump and anybody that supported him. This is a weaponization of our judicial system and our bar disciplinary processes that has never occurred in our history before,” he said.

“We even had former California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown designated as a witness to talk about that, and she was prohibited from testifying as a witness.”

Mr. Eastman drew from evidence provided by Garland Favorito, a retired information technology professional and founder of VoterGA, a nonpartisan, nonprofit election integrity group.

Mr. Favorito is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed on Dec. 23, 2020, that challenged the authenticity of 147,000 absentee ballots cast in Georgia’s Fulton County.


He discovered “thousands of ballots that were duplicated and counted multiple times” in deep blue areas of Atlanta in violation of state law, Mr. Eastman said.

“We also had Michael Gableman, former Supreme Court justice of Wisconsin ... who was retained by the Legislature to conduct an investigation, and they discovered hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots,” he said.

Mr. Gableman uncovered alleged nursing home fraud, which Mr. Eastman said accounts for much more than the 20,000-vote margin of victory for President Joe Biden, and voter turnout rates in nursing homes went from 20 percent to 30 percent historically to nearly 100 percent, including from within memory care wings.

“Many of the ballots are in the same handwriting, so the illegality opened the door for fraud, which Gableman proved ... and it affected way more than 20,000 ballots,” he said.

“There’s no question Wisconsin was stolen. To this day, there are 120,000 more ballots than voters in Pennsylvania, a state where the margin was 80,000.”

Americans used to go to a local polling place such as a neighborhood community room at the library or the local church to vote, but in 2020, mail-in ballots were counted in much larger facilities in big cities such as Atlanta, Detroit, and Philadelphia where it would be “much easier to sneak in a pallet of ballots,” he said.

Although ballot harvesting is legal in California, it was illegal in many states during the 2020 election.

image-5636449
A worker oversees pallets of mail-in ballots being unloaded at a U.S. Postal Service processing and distribution center in Portland, Ore., on Oct. 14, 2020. Mr. Eastman said that in 2020, mail-in ballots were counted in much larger facilities in big cities where it would be “much easier to sneak in a pallet of ballots.” (Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

‘Jiu-Jitsu Move’

Mr. Eastman, who has held his California law license for more than 26 years, seems undaunted and unapologetic, holding steadfast to his belief he had every right to do what he did.
His children are proud of him for taking a stand and for his courage and intellectual fortitude, he said, and although he is up to the challenge, he said he would “much rather be doing other things.”

“I’ve been involved in Supreme Court cases for over 20 years, designed a litigation strategy for the Claremont Institute to bring back a lot of original meaning of the Constitution, and a lot of my work is coming to fruition, and now I’m on defense instead of helping on the offensive,” he said.

The use of the disciplinary system to go after political opponents for doing nothing other than what lawyers are obligated ethically to do on behalf of their clients is lawfare, Mr. Eastman said.

“It’s an abuse of the legal system ... and a complete violation of separation of powers,” he said. “This is the kind of thing that banana republics do, or Stalinist Russia did. It’s not the kind of thing that America has ever done.”


He also criticized the corporate media for having entrenched narratives.

“They’ve got a narrative, and anything that doesn’t fit that narrative, they either distort or don’t cover it at all,” he said.

He said he thinks one of the reasons he has come under such a “vicious attack” is that he has “the credibility” to call out the media.

“I like the phrase that Rush Limbaugh came up with for the media,“ he said. ”He called them the drive-by media. [They] drive by and take potshots without ever having to defend the position [they’re] taking.”

The left, he said, is trying to tear him down to avoid examining the evidence.

“It’s the combination of the credibility: my credentials, my constitutional expertise, my tenacity, and the fact that I’m telling the truth,” he said. “That’s why when I put on true evidence in my bar trial, they’ve got to completely destroy it because what it means, if I’m right about this, is that they stole the election.”

So far, Democrats have successfully made it appear as though President Trump was trying to steal the election, Mr. Eastman said.

“You’ve gotta hand it to ’em. That’s quite a jiu-jitsu move,” he said.

De-Banked, Death Threats

Since he decided to represent President Trump, Mr. Eastman and his family have also been harassed and threatened by leftist activists in his hometown of Sante Fe, New Mexico.
Vandals buried four-inch steel spikes into his dirt driveway, which blew two sets of tires on his vehicle, he said.

“We had people piling dog crap at the foot of our mailbox,” he said. “We had people spray painting on the road leading to our house with a big arrow, our address, my name, and basically doxing me, encouraging people to commit acts of vandalism against us.”


Three to eight protesters gathered every day at the end of the block for a year, Mr. Eastman said.

“We get death threats,” he said.

Mr. Eastman has referred some of these threats to the FBI, and the state police have stepped up patrols near his residence, he said.

“We live down the road a little bit from the governor’s mansion, so they’re regularly running patrols for the New Mexico governor, and so they ... put us on the patrol route,” he said.

Mr. Eastman has not only been threatened with disbarment but he has also been allegedly de-banked by Bank of America and USAA.

“We’ve been 40-year customers of Bank of America, and last September, they sent us a letter saying that they’d made the decision not to continue to do business with us and were closing our accounts,” Mr. Eastman said.

The bank provided a number to call for an explanation, but when Mr. Eastman called, no such explanation was given.

“It’s just a recording that says: ‘If you’ve gotten a letter saying we’re canceling your accounts, our explanation is we don’t give any explanations. Thank you very much, goodbye,’” he said.


Two months later, he received a similar letter from USAA, which had become the Eastmans’ primary bank, saying it was closing their accounts, with a similar recorded message saying its policy is not to give any further information.

“They closed the account,” he said. “USAA was really surprising because their clientele is all military or children of military. My wife’s father was in the Navy in World War II, and in the Marines in the Korean War, and that’s why we were eligible to have accounts there, and they just canceled them without any explanation whatsoever.”

ept. 15, 2008. Mr. Eastman has been allegedly de-banked by Bank of America. (Davis Turner/Getty Images)

His Early Life

Growing up, Mr. Eastman, who was born in Lincoln, Nebraska, moved from state to state as his father was transferred with every promotion at his job with Eastman-Kodak (no relation).
“They had a policy: You never supervised your immediate past colleagues, so every little rung up meant a transfer. So we were like army brats. We’d do two years here and three years there,” he said.

He lived in Washington state, Kentucky, New Jersey, upstate New York, and Texas before moving to Orange County, California, to attend grad school.

By the 1980 election, Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan was “making sense” to Mr. Eastman, who said he remains a “Reagan conservative.”

Mr. Eastman graduated from high school in Texas and ended up at the University of Dallas.

Near the end of the campaign, Mr. Reagan made a whistle-stop tour to Dallas for rallies and fundraisers, where Mr. Eastman was the Dallas County Republican Party volunteer chairman. But as a 20-year-old student, that meant “you’re the guy that has the Secret Service clearance badge to load the luggage onto the plane,” he said.

The Monday night after the weekend event, future President Reagan and future First Lady Nancy Reagan were preparing to fly on the campaign jet to Century City, California, for the election night watch party the next day, but their flight clearance had been delayed by 45 minutes.

Mr. Eastman recalled that when Mr. Reagan noticed him waiting on the tarmac, he said to him: “So, young fellow, every time I turn around the last couple of days, you’re there working the line or working the luggage. Why don’t you come up and have a cup of coffee and doughnuts with me and Nancy?”

Mr. Eastman worked for the Reagan administration near the end of the last term but always regretted never getting a photograph with President Reagan, so in 1992, he wrote the former president and asked him if he’d mind posing for a picture with him and his wife in Century City.

In the letter, Mr. Eastman recounted his memory of meeting the Reagans in Dallas.

“He remembered the event on the tarmac. He was very gracious,” Mr. Eastman said.


But on the drive from Diamond Bar to meet President Reagan in Century City, an oil tanker crashed on the CA-60 highway delaying traffic for an hour and a half, and he couldn’t call the former president until he finally reached a gas station that had a payphone. When he did call, “very apologetically,” President Reagan was kind enough to wait with the photographer.

“The first thing he does is apologize because he’s not in his formal suit-and-tie,” even though he was still “dressed to the nines” in a more casual sport coat because he was heading to an event at a country club, Mr. Eastman recalled.

“My wife was pregnant with our first child, so we’ve got the two of us and the baby bump and Reagan in the picture,” he said.

Double Standards

The double standards in today’s political power structure are blatant and have reached the point at which most conservatives won’t question the state, he said.

“You’re not allowed to ask, unless you’re a Democrat,” he said. “Hillary Clinton is still out on the stump saying that the 2016 election was stolen from her and they perpetrated the biggest political fraud in American history with illegal money laundering through their law firm to pay for the Fusion GPS, false story on the Russian dossier. And then they used that false story, which everybody knew was false, including the higher-ups at the FBI and the Department of Justice. They used that and doctored the evidence ... to get FISA warrants to spy on the opposing political campaign.”

Yet those who perpetrated this plot against President Trump haven’t been charged with any crimes or threatened with disbarment and lawsuits, he said.

“They spied on him during the campaign. They continued to spy on him after he won, and they continued to spy on him after he was inaugurated. This is the biggest political scandal in our nation’s history,” Mr. Eastman said. “That was an attempted coup, and they’re all off the hook because the power structure supports them.”

Deborah Pauly, whose Conservative Patriots of Orange County group hosted a rally for Mr. Eastman in August 2023, told The Epoch Times that what the media, left-wing activists, and even some Republicans have done to Mr. Eastman and his family is “flat out evil.”

Her group supports Mr. Eastman’s efforts to protect the United States’ constitutional form of government, she said.

“What is happening here—not just with Dr. John Eastman, but in other cases, too—is a direct threat to our form of government,” she said. “Anyone who cares about our Constitution should be very concerned.”

Cancel culture has gone from censorship on social media to silencing doctors who dared express “divergent thought” during the COVID-19 pandemic, and “attacking the nation’s top constitutional law attorney,” she said.


Ms. Pauly said that although Mr. Eastman is “standing strong,” the threats to his means of livelihood and the safety of his family have prevented others from speaking out about election integrity.

“All he did was put forth an untested theory,” she said. “The fact that someone who is so highly regarded as a constitutional law authority is being silenced and subjected to great humiliation and great pain and suffering quite frankly—not just in his professional life, but in the personal toll that it takes on someone to be under attack like this—is significant.”

The United States’ success as a nation hinges on the balance of power among the three equal branches of government and a balance between the states and the federal government, but it is up to the people and the media to keep that balance, Ms. Pauly said.

“That’s not happening for many reasons, and that’s a real problem. Everything is out of whack,” she said.

It’s infuriating to watch other attorneys and conservative leaders who once cozied up to Mr. Eastman when he transformed Chapman University Law School into a nationally recognized program turn their backs on him now, Ms. Pauly said.

“That, to me, is the most repugnant part of it,” she said. “They’re part of the swamp.”

Mr. Eastman said the federal government has become more authoritarian under the Biden administration.

“We’ve gotten to the point where when the government speaks, you better bend your knee and repeat what they say or they’ll try to destroy you. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the election or CRT [critical race theory] or DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] or vaccines or masks or whatever the hot issue is; the government has spoken, and we’re all supposed to just act like little sheep and obey,” he said.

The government’s actions have violated the First Amendment, he said.

Mr. Eastman said he believes his legal challenge is a calling to push back against this oppression and threat to self-governance and freedom, which he said is part of a spiritual and cultural war happening in the United States.

“This country is on the precipice of losing what we’ve had,” he said. “I’m on the ramparts. I’ve been cast at the forefront of this battle. ... It’s one of the greatest honors of my life.”

All of his life choices and experiences have equipped him to confront this battle.

“Anybody of faith would be remiss in not recognizing the hand of providence in that. I do think it’s a spiritual battle,” he said.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18318
    • View Profile
Re: ET: Eastman still in the fight-- strong piece
« Reply #429 on: Today at 05:44:16 AM »
Yes, strong piece.  Persecuting good people.  Murderers get representation butvRepublicans don't.

"Americans used to go to a local polling place such as a neighborhood community room at the library or the local church to vote, ...."

  - There were problems then yoo but far fewer.

One idea to end mail voting, defund the usps.