Author Topic: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State  (Read 391982 times)



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18974
    • View Profile
by trying to embarrass Trump prosecution kills their own case
« Reply #1902 on: May 07, 2024, 02:28:32 PM »
assuming any of the porn stars allegations are true this would be exactly the reason he would pay her off and have her sign a NDA; to do just that - avoid embarrassment for him and family.

so it is obvious to me this whole thing is to humiliate Trump and hope the jury is dishonest enough along with the judge to rule a crime is committed, (falsely!!!) and before any appeal which according to any honest lawyer I have heard said would result in a conviction being overturned.


what a joke

amazing how lawyers themselves are not embarrassed by this whole circus.


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: May 15, 2024, 02:55:59 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70626
    • View Profile
Brennan and Clapper are back!
« Reply #1904 on: May 21, 2024, 11:09:00 AM »
"James Clapper and John Brennan"?!?  The Axis of the Deep State and the Controligarchs burrows in deeper yet:
=========================
Forward Observer

(2) DHS RESTARTS INTEL ADVISORY BOARD AFTER COURT LOSS: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it will establish the Homeland Intelligence Advisory Board, which will mirror the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas disbanded the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group earlier this month to resolve a lawsuit brought by America First Legal, which argued that DHS did not follow the law when it established the group.

Why It Matters: This is an additional data point supporting the likely increase in coordination between federal agencies and online platforms to censor political speech in the fight against “misinformation” and “election interference.” James Clapper and John Brennan, as part of the new advisory board and members of the disbanded experts group, signed a letter ahead of the 2020 election claiming media coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop “had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation operations.” This is likely to result in more censorship of online political speech and media coverage of stories that could negatively impact Biden’s reelection. – R.C.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
Looming “Censorship Industrial Complex” Info Coming?
« Reply #1905 on: May 21, 2024, 06:54:36 PM »
Given Tabbi’s work breaking the Twitter Files I suspect this bodes some very interesting revelations:

Note to Readers: That Eerie Silence
Getcha popcorn ready.
MATT TAIBBI
MAY 21, 2024

“THE AI ELECTION”: Forget Russians, domestic terrorists, or “Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior.” This year’s censorship hobby horse is AI

Subscribe
Racket readers may have noticed it’s been a bit quiet in here of late. That’s because I’ve been spending the last few weeks on an investigative series in cooperation with another site. What seemed like a cut-and-dried report turned into a bit of a rabbit hole on us; hence the delay.

When I first started publishing the Twitter Files in 2022-2023 along with Michael Shellenberger, Bari Weiss, Lee Fang, David Zweig, Paul Thacker, and others, there was an emphasis on speed. Once we saw phrases like “flagged by DHS,” I knew the project was temporary, and guessed we’d probably need to stay ahead of the news cycle in order to avoid seeing material drown in blowback. So, we set aside some explosive bigger-picture storylines to focus on things that could be confirmed and published quickly. There were also topics we didn’t fully understand at the time.

Some of those broader stories will begin coming out now, hopefully starting this week. There’s a reason for working back through this material now. Sources tell me at least two different active groups are working on political content moderation programs for the November election that tactically would go a step or two beyond what we observed with groups like Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership, proposing not just deamplification or removals, but fakery, use of bots, and other “offensive” forms of manipulation.

If the recent rush of news stories about the horror of foreign-inspired AI deepfakes (“No one can stop them,” gasps the Washington Post) creating intolerable risk to the coming “AI election” sounds a bit off to you, you’re not alone. This is one of many potential threats pro-censorship groups are playing up in hopes of deploying more aggressive “counter-messaging” tools. Some early proposals along those lines are in the unpublished Twitter Files documents we’ve been working on. Again, more on this topic soon.

Also: beginning around the time we published the “Report on the Censorship-Industrial Complex,” Racket in partnership with UndeadFOIA began issuing Freedom of Information requests in bulk. The goal was to identify inexcusably secret contractors of content-policing agencies like the State Department’s Global Engagement Center. The FOIA system is designed to exhaust citizens, but our idea was to match the irritating resolve of FOIA officers by pre-committing resources for inevitable court disputes, fights over production costs, etc. Thanks to UndeadFOIA’s great work, we now have a sizable library of documents about publicly-funded censorship programs (and a few private ones scooped up in official correspondence).

We’ll be releasing those, too, focusing on a few emails per batch, and publishing the rest in bulk. There’s so much material that a quick global summary here would be difficult, but suffice to say that the anti-disinformation/content control world is much bigger than I thought, enjoying cancer-like growth on campuses in particular, in the same way military research became primary sources of grants and took over universities in the fifties and sixties. Some of these FOIA documents are damning, some entertaining, some just interesting, but all of them belong to the public. We’re going to start the process of turning them over, hopefully today.

In any case, thanks to Racket readers for their patience. I’m very appreciative of the commitment every subscriber makes, especially in this narrowing media environment, which is why I want to make sure readers understand what’s usually going on when things go dark around here. My idea of a vacation is one or two days. If you don’t hear from me for six, I’m working on something. Back soon, and thanks again.

https://www.racket.news/p/note-to-readers-that-eerie-silence


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18974
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1907 on: June 04, 2024, 06:01:20 AM »
Oh, AI is the reason

makes perfect sense now time to move along  :roll: :wink:

looks like it took them days to dream up this BS excuse.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18665
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1908 on: June 04, 2024, 07:40:35 AM »
Oh, AI is the reason

makes perfect sense now time to move along  :roll: :wink:

looks like it took them days to dream up this BS excuse.

Yes, world champion BS excuse.  Read the transcript, you don't need AI to turn this into a mockery.  It's much more powerful to know it's real, that's what he said and he gets away with it.

He honestly doesn't know when he was Vice President, and now he is 'leader of the free world'.

The people who thought Reagan was too dumb and too old to be President are giving billions to get this guy, actually the puppet masters behind this guy, reelected.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70626
    • View Profile
FO: Iranian penetration
« Reply #1909 on: June 05, 2024, 02:47:17 PM »


(3) FIRM TELLS COURT DOJ COVERED UP U.S. BANK IRAN SANCTION VIOLATIONS: Brutus Trading LLC told the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York that the Department of Justice (DOJ) “perpetrated a colossal fraud” by falsely denying Brutus turned over “damning evidence” to the DOJ that Standard Chartered Bank violated Iran sanctions by facilitating financial transactions.
Standard Chartered Bank and the DOJ entered into deferred prosecution agreements in 2012 and 2019 over allegations of violating sanctions against Iran.

Why It Matters: The timeline of deferred prosecution agreements line up roughly with the Obama administration and incoming Biden administration, which focused on the Iran nuclear deal as a major foreign policy victory. The Obama, and now Biden, focus on maintaining the Iran nuclear deal is a likely explanation for little public action on what appears to be an infiltration of the government by the Iran Experts Group and Iran envoy Robert Malley. This is also a possible explanation for the DOJ’s deferred prosecution agreements with Standard Chartered Bank over sanctions violations that facilitated billions of dollars in transactions. – R.C.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18974
    • View Profile
Bannon
« Reply #1910 on: June 07, 2024, 07:55:34 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18665
    • View Profile
Re: Bannon
« Reply #1911 on: June 07, 2024, 08:23:20 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-wants-five-lawmakers-indicted/ar-BB1nMIHB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=ee14967459e5441f93bc51ff0783058b&ei=10

I don't know.
Wasn't Bannon caught stealing money or something?

I don't want to defend him.

It's Alvin Bragg making the charges so we better take a wait and see approach.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/former-trump-adviser-steve-bannon-turns-new-york-state-charges-rcna46662

"duped thousands of donors by maintaining that all the money raised would go to build a wall along the southern border and not to the people running the effort."

Might as well indict United Way as well.  How much of their money doesn't get to helping the needy?

I'm sure Alvin Bragg is really concerned about individual build-the-wall contributors and not just out to get Trump officials and friends.

Why does it take private money to build a national wall?

If he did bilk investors, he can pay the price.

But that's not what he was sentenced for.

Contempt of Congress: Bannon was charged with two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to appear for a deposition and refusing to produce documents in response to a subpoena from the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

Thus is where Trump has a point.  Who else do we know who has been in contempt lately?  Joe Biden with the audio tape is one. 30k emails of HRC.  Comey and Brennan and everyone else in that criminal ring.  Mayorkas.  And the 5 he mentioned.

Two standards of justice and prosecution has to end.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70626
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1912 on: June 07, 2024, 08:57:27 AM »

Bannon may have a point on the contempt charge, but even if not, there are several others on the Dem side who have done the same or worse to no consequence.

As for the grifting on the money raised for the wall, it smells to me like he is guilty.

My initial take on what Trump says here is that he is on the mark. 

In the big picture he faces a genuinely tough decision here.  Does he advocate that the law breakers who waged lawfare against him and others pay the price?  Though the right thing to do, my sense of things is that it will cost him many votes. 

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
Insulated from Accountability
« Reply #1913 on: June 20, 2024, 04:32:09 AM »
The “Progressive” left’s efforts to insulate its Deep State organs from consequences, accountability, and control should Trump win”

https://pjmedia.com/benshapiro/2024/06/20/the-democratic-subversion-of-democracy-n4930010 :-D

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
The Deep State Diaries
« Reply #1914 on: June 21, 2024, 07:27:45 PM »
A now defunct due to exposure committee of “Homeland Security” (in scare quotes as its mission all too often provides anything but) discussed identifying radical Americans due to their religious, military, among other mainstream affiliations. Enraging stuff:

https://aflegal.org/exclusive-new-docs-reveal-the-brennan-clapper-led-dhs-committee-proposed-americans-report-neighbors-to-the-feds/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70626
    • View Profile
WT: Inherent Contempt
« Reply #1915 on: June 28, 2024, 05:02:12 AM »


HOUSE

Rogue faction wants to arrest Garland

House Republicans seek audiotapes of Hur’s interview with Biden

BY ALEX MILLER THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A group of House Republicans is trying to have Attorney General Merrick Garland arrested for not handing over the audiotapes of President Biden’s interviews with special counsel Robert Hur, but their mission is meeting resistance within the party.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Republican, is leading the charge to hold Mr. Garland in inherent contempt, a special charge that, if passed, would allow Congress to take the attorney general into custody and force him to testify about withholding the audiotapes.

She vowed this week that if Mr. Garland did not adhere to the House’s subpoena for the tapes, she would force a vote on arresting him as soon as Friday.

“What we’re trying to do right now is, again, Garland, if he wants to avoid this, let Congress hear the tapes,” Ms. Luna said. “You cannot ignore this. People are in jail for way less. So let us hear the tapes, we’ll go to the Department of Justice. We will listen to them, but let us do our jobs. And we won’t have to do this.”

Ms. Luna’s new push comes after nearly every House Republican voted to hold Mr. Garland in contempt of Congress earlier this month for refusing to comply with a subpoena to turn over the tapes of Mr. Hur’s October interview with Mr. Biden.

Mr. Hur’s report of the interviews was focused on whether he mishandled classifi ed documents, but called into question the president’s cognitive ability. Mr. Hur declined to press charges against Mr. Biden because, he said, a jury would be sympathetic to the president, whom he described as a well-meaning, forgetful, old man.

Republicans’ previous attempt at accountability for Mr. Garland, unsurprisingly, went nowhere when the Justice Department declined to charge the head of the agency, arguing that he was acting on an executive order from Mr. Biden to withhold the audio.

If the inherent contempt play is successful, Mr. Garland would be put into custody by the House Sergeant-at-Arms under House Speaker Mike Johnson’s direction, and then forced to testify before lawmakers.

But detractors within the Republican Party believe relying on that power, last used in 1934, is more theatrical than substantive.

Rep. John Duarte, California Republican, was unsure where Mr. Garland would even be held in custody — he said that the rumor was the attorney general might be held in a hotel room.

He argued that Republicans did not need to escalate their war with Mr. Garland to the level of inherent contempt, which he described as an extreme tactic meant to gain lawmakers “notoriety.”

“I know there’s probably enough people, enough Republicans in the camp with me that this isn’t going to pass,” Mr. Duarte told The Washington Times.

Even some who support the move acknowledge that it probably won’t go anywhere.

Rep. Max Miller, Ohio Republican, told The Washington Times that though he believed that the inherent contempt gambit would ultimately fail, he still supported it because of his own personal experience receiving a subpoena to appear in front of the Jan. 6 special committee.

“I can tell you what would’ve happened to me. They would come arrest me and they would probably throw me in the clink and sentence me to a little bit of time and hold me accountable,” said Mr. Miller, who accordingly complied with the subpoena.

“Well, the attorney general should be held to the same standard and Congress does have that oversight ability,” he said.

And Mr. Johnson, Louisiana Republican, has not fully endorsed the move.

He announced Wednesday that the Judiciary Committee would be suing the Justice Department to gain access to the tapes as part of its impeachment inquiry, but did not completely shut down Ms. Luna’s attempt.

“We’re looking at all avenues. I’ve talked to Anna Paulina Luna and our colleagues about various ideas,” said Mr. Johnson. “But … we’re gonna be as aggressive as we can and use every tool in our arsenal to make sure that happens because we have an obligation in the Constitution.”

While the inherent contempt power hasn’t been used in 90 years, the current GOP isn’t the party looking to resurrect an arcane procedure to handle a dispute with the executive branch over access to materials.

In 2019, Democrats threatened to hold then-Attorney General William Barr in inherent contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena to hand over the fully unredacted version of the report by special counsel Robert Mueller on President Trump’s ties to Russia.

While Mr. Barr was held in contempt, which also went unprosecuted, nothing came of the calls from some Democrats to find him in inherent contempt.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70626
    • View Profile
WSJ: Strassel: 51 Intel Know-Nothings
« Reply #1916 on: June 28, 2024, 12:32:46 PM »


The 51 Intel Know-Nothings
New revelations on the 2020 attempt to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Kimberley A. Strassel
June 27, 2024 5:10 pm ET

ential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., Oct. 22, 2020. PHOTO: MORRY GASH/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
As Joe Biden headed into his Thursday night brawl with Donald Trump, he was missing a key ally from his 2020 debates. He doesn’t have the backing of an intelligence community that Democrats once promised would kneecap Mr. Trump “six ways from Sunday.”

We learned more this week about those 51 former intelligence officials who in 2020 pulled their own version of the 2016 Hillary Clinton-James Comey Russia-collusion hoax. In October 2020 the 51 released a public statement declaring that emails “purportedly” belonging to Hunter Biden’s laptop exhibited “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Joe Biden used this to deflect a debate question about the laptop as “a bunch of garbage”; social-media companies used it to justify censoring the New York Post’s laptop stories; and American voters were kept in the dark about the Biden family business in the runup to November’s razor-thin election result.

House investigators revealed last year the partisan truth: It was the Biden campaign that ginned up the letter. Campaign adviser Antony Blinken (now secretary of state) called former Obama Deputy Central Intelligence Agency Director Mike Morell three days after the Post published the Hunter emails (and just before the second Trump-Biden debate), a chat investigators wrote “led to the issuance of the public statement.” Mr. Morell testified the goal was, among other things, to “help Vice President Biden” “win the election.”

But the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees this week released a second report that exposes the lengths to which this cabal went to craft their own disinformation campaign. Recall the slippery cleverness of the original statement. The signers went out of their way to include their prior official titles and experience—to boost the legitimacy of their declaration—alongside analysis suggesting special abilities that enabled them to credibly brand the emails Russian “disinformation.” Yet they included a careful caveat: They explained they didn’t have any direct “evidence” of Russian involvement—i.e., no access to classified information.

It turns out this know-nothingness was deliberate—making the letter even more scandalous. The new House report says that at least two signatories were CIA contractors at the time of the statement, while others retained access to classified material. All it would have taken was one call or briefing to ascertain that the laptop wasn’t part of a Russian campaign. The federal government certainly knew it. The Federal Bureau of Investigation had been in possession of the Hunter laptop since 2019, while Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, on the same day as the statement, said that the laptop was “not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”


Instead, these “professionals” with access to the truth purposely kept themselves in the dark—so as to retain their ability to engage in wild (and false) speculation in aid of a political campaign. In an interview with House investigators, former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper—whose name appeared at the top of the statement—was asked why he didn’t first request a briefing on such a specific topic, given that he “had the clearance.” Mr. Clapper said he “didn’t think it was appropriate” because “I didn’t want to be tainted by . . . access to classified information.” Asked how the truth would possibly count as “tainted,” he dug himself a bigger hole: “Bad choice of words. . . . I wanted only to go on what I had seen publicly.” He didn’t want any truth to get in the way of the story.

Mr. Morell similarly told House investigators that he hadn’t engaged in any conversations with the FBI, received a classified briefing, or availed himself of any investigative material, prior to organizing a bombshell claim that a foreign government was interfering in a U.S. election. The House reports that Mr. Morell was an active CIA contractor at the time of the statement. (In an email to the Post on Tuesday, Mr. Morell denied it.) Never forget: Those at the top of the intel game are there because they know the art of cons, double-cons, and plausible deniability.

The House report divulges other disturbing info, including that the CIA’s internal review board (which scours proposed publications for classified information) may have rushed its process at the request of the vaunted 51. Also, that while the highest echelons of the CIA were alerted to the statement prior to publication, nobody took any action to set the signers straight. Then there are the ethical problems of CIA contractors brazenly engaging in partisan politics and elections.

This year’s Biden campaign hasn’t (yet) been dumb enough to try to sell the voting public on another Russia-election plot. But it’s a long way to November, and this week’s report serves as a sharp reminder of the outsize and repugnant political roles the FBI and intelligence community played in the past two presidential elections. With a track record like this, voters should treat any wild claim with the distrust it deserves—and remember just which political party has proven itself more adept at spewing disinformation.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
As the Real Politic Worm Turns
« Reply #1917 on: July 01, 2024, 05:56:58 PM »
This piece is pretty close to a unified field theory of how politics work, though had I written it I’d have dwelt far more on how anyone that works themselves up any sort of national political ladder has to sell their souls several times over to powerbrokers and gatekeepers and party hacks, not because they have much use for a sullied soul, but because the act of selling what you claim to hold dear is their fucking union card, the thing that proves they are a fully vested member of the large organization.

Then along comes some upstart like Trump elbowing aside a long line of soul sellers without kissing ass or dropping trou and of course all those that made that soul sale and all those that rely on the leaks, confidential sourcing, and marching orders posing as press releases have to pile on the usurper, too.

But hey, like we learned in grade school, everyone has to take their turn:

Who’s Running the Country?

Biden’s decline exposes a much bigger national crisis.

July 1, 2024 by Daniel Greenfield 61 Comments

[Order Daniel Greenfield’s new book, Domestic Enemies: HERE.]

The 2016 presidential election was going to come down to two candidates, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, whose ‘turns’ had come. And then Donald J Trump rode down an escalator, took their ‘turn’ and the establishment has never been the same since. Because it was their ‘turn’.

In 2020, it was the ‘turn’ of Joe Biden, a man whose only political credential was that he had stuck around long enough to stick to things, like the Senate and the Vice Presidency.

Now in 2024, it’s Joe Biden’s ‘turn’ again. No one in his party was under the impression that he was the best candidate, the best campaigner or the best president, but damn it, it was his ‘turn’.

And now the Democrats are panicking because the candidate taking his ‘turn’ is imploding.

Biden’s debate meltdown has frightened Democrats, but they still have no answer for how to stop the car accident that everyone else could see coming from miles away. And no good strategy beyond getting the party leaders to confront their candidate and ask him to step down. But how do you take away Biden’s ‘turn’ when turns are the most sacred thing in politics.

It’s not an exclusively Democrat problem. The GOP put up Bob Dole against Bill Clinton and John McCain against Barack Obama because it was their ‘turns’. They let Mitt Romney go up against Obama a second time because it was his ‘turn’. And after Republicans lost two straight presidential elections because they ran establishment candidates taking their ‘turn’, voters were so sick of it that they did what they would have never done before and picked Trump.

Because it wasn’t his ‘turn’.

‘Turn’ politics mostly still rules. Candidates past their prime go up to bat because they have the biggest networks of fellow politicians, donors and party activists. It’s as if Major League Baseball favored players on the basis of seniority and how well they networked, not based on how well they can pitch or hit.

But unlike sports, politics isn’t a meritocracy, it isn’t even a democracy, it’s an oligarchy.

Voters self-importantly think of elections as the big political competition, but that’s like judging companies based on the keynote addresses of their CEOs. Elections are the least important part of politics. All the really important parts of politics happen behind closed doors. What politicians do isn’t run for office, they network, they cut deals and they plan their careers.

That network, which we occasionally call by wholly inadequate names like the “establishment” or “D.C. insiders” is the reason Biden is up again in 2024. And why he can’t be gotten rid of.

People who naively think that Obama is secretly running the Biden administration don’t understand the network or how it works. Obama took on Hillary when it was her ‘turn’ in 2008. He won and brokered a deal that moved the Democrat network further leftward. And he did the same thing again in 2020, bringing in Bernie’s people and Elizabeth Warren’s people (and his own people) so that the Biden administration is even more radical and extreme than his was.

But where did Obama come from? He came out of that network of radical activists, donors and government personnel now running the country. Obama is not a brilliant genius or one man dynamo, he was a lazy and unoriginal activist lawyer, one of tens of thousands of Ivy Leaguers who join the political side of the network, who wanted to live out his egotistical ambitions.

And the leftist networks gave him the opportunity to do it in exchange for seeding it deeper across the Democrat Party, the government and the country. Then his time came.

Obama did not want Biden to succeed him. He pushed Biden out in favor of Hillary and then tried to bring in a surprise candidate to run against him in 2020. But some things are sacred and not even Obama, especially once out of the White House, could take away Biden’s ‘turn’ twice.

It’s not really Biden’s ‘turn’ though. It’s the turn of the strategists, lobbyists, staffers, donors,  allies and more nebulous figures known as ‘friends’ whom he accrued over the years. They’re invested in his success and they’re profiting from it. And they won’t easily give it up.

Trying to replace Biden with Newsom (aside from the legal and logistical issues) would be a clash of two networks that would require either careful negotiations or outright civil war. It’s done all the time with primary rivals who become vice presidents or cabinet members, but displacing a sitting president who also won the nomination and has raised and spent a massive fortune would require a level of delicate negotiations akin to bringing peace to an African civil war.

Especially if that president is unstable, prone to fits of anger, and is insulated by the same political allies whose wealth and power depend on Biden winning a second term in office.

It’s not just about Jill and Hunter, Joe Biden has tens of thousands of political mouths to feed. Money has been collected, favors promised, people have bought homes in D.C. bedroom communities, lobbyists have secured fat contracts and donors have opened up their wallets.

Replacing Biden with another candidate would upend much of D.C., put tens of billions of dollars in flux and create massive instability in this corrupt local economy. Much of D.C. would rather ride it out (especially since the campaign people will make just as much money if Biden loses) and preserve the integrity of the networks and the illicit pinkie swears that allow special interests to buy influence without having to worry if their man will suddenly be swapped out.

That is what “it’s his turn” really means.

It’s not impossible for the Democrats to replace Biden but despite all the ‘Orange Man Bad’ alarmism that is their only campaign slogan, none of them view him as enough of an existential threat to disrupt a political way of life which allowed a mediocre grifter like Biden to get this far.

People who don’t understand that were baffled that Biden would run and that he would get the nomination. After his disastrous debate showing, much of the party panicked and outsiders assumed that they would dump Biden. The truth is that the Democrats wish they could.

‘Turn’ corruption once again threatens the survival of the party and yet they can’t break away from it because parties are vehicles for careerism and cash. The networks around powerful politicians build careers and move money. And those networks are running the country.

When people ask “who’s been running the country” after Biden’s debate performance, the answer is that it’s the same people who run most of the government. And have all along.

Politicians in a state of obvious mental decline like Biden or Sen. Dianne Feinstein who go on introducing bills, signing legislation, tweeting and expressing strong opinions on issues in their press releases are not aberrations, they’re symptoms of a much bigger problem.

Not just Biden, but many, if not most, elected officials are figureheads who exist to broker favorable arrangements between their personal networks of donors and staffers, and those of other elected officials, and the ones in the bureaucracy that actually make policy. The revolving door between staffers, personnel, appointees and lobbyists who move between administrations, offices, boards, corporations, think tanks and firms is the actual force that runs the country more than most elections. Politicians play their part, meeting, greeting and signing off on what they’re told will be good for their careers within the networks they’re part of.

And if they build up enough cachet, one day it will also be their ‘turn’ to be at the top..

That’s why Democrats can’t solve their Biden problem. The issue isn’t one man’s decline but a systemic crisis. Biden embodies what the Democrats (and the two-party system and politics really is) and while getting him out may fix the immediate problem, it won’t fix the system.

Biden is a test of how much the system is willing to risk and how high a public implosion it’s willing to tolerate to protect the sacred right of the ‘turn’. Will Democrats let their party go down to protect the system? Will they go on lying to their voters and their donors? Will the media, which briefly broke away from the lies after the debate, resume going along with the scam?

Other ‘Bidens’, some elderly, confused and inept like Joe, others middle aged, confused and inept, like Kamala, and some even young, confused and inept like AOC, fill the system because they are how the system works. It’s not a meritocracy that elevates the best, a democracy chosen by the people, but an oligarchy that runs the system and is also the system.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/whos-running-the-country/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70626
    • View Profile
Immunity decision protects Biden
« Reply #1918 on: July 02, 2024, 11:26:13 AM »
ATTORNEY: THIS DECISION ACTUALLY PROTECTS *BIDEN*… Former Trump Attorney Tells CNN Immunity Ruling ‘Really Protects President Biden’ (VIDEO)

“You know, what‘s interesting about this decision now is it really protects President Biden. President Biden, when he is no longer the president, whatever that is, won’t really be able to be prosecuted for anything that he‘s doing in office that’s an official act. And so it gives him a level of protection in this decision today, that I don’t think folks are really contemplating yet,” van der Veen said.

“Because there was a big fear that if Trump were to win and President Biden was out of office, that there would be prosecutions of him and people with him. And the protections afforded are also afforded to President Biden. Interesting,” he continued.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70626
    • View Profile
WSJ: Mukasey: Jack Smith is invalid
« Reply #1919 on: July 08, 2024, 05:16:47 AM »
Jack Smith Isn’t a Special Counsel ‘by Law’
Federal prosecutors must be duly appointed and confirmed by the Senate. He fails both tests.
By Michael B. Mukasey
July 7, 2024 4:33 pm ET


There’s good news and bad news for special counsel Jack Smith. The good news is that he may not have to confront the thorny issues stemming from the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. The bad news is that the good news may put him out of a job. That result would follow from a finding either that there is no legal authority for the creation of the office of special counsel, that he wasn’t appointed in compliance with the Constitution, or some combination of the two.

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
Democrats Denounce the 'MAGA Supreme Court'


The Constitution’s Appointments Clause limits how executive offices can be created and how they may be filled. Before the Revolution, the king could both create and fill offices. The Constitution eliminated that power by giving Congress the authority to create offices or to authorize their creation in specific instances, and requiring the advice and consent of the Senate before the president could fill certain offices. It empowers the president to nominate and appoint “officers of the United States” not specifically provided for in the Constitution only with the advice and consent of the Senate, and only to offices “which shall be established by Law.” The Appointments Clause does allow for the appointment of officers by the president, a court or the head of a department—such as the attorney general—but, again, only when such appointment is permitted “by Law.”

Authority for appointment of the current special counsel doesn’t exist “by Law,” but rather through a set of regulations put in place unilaterally by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno in 1999. They don’t have the force of a law passed by Congress and signed by the president, and can be changed at any time by any attorney general.

While concurring in the majority opinion on the issue of presidential immunity, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to raise the question of whether any law has created the office of special counsel. He noted that Mr. Smith was appointed by the attorney general, and that Mr. Smith relies not on one but on four statutes as authorizing the office of special counsel. Justice Thomas notes that none of them refers specifically to creating such an office; that two are “generic provisions concerning the functions of the Attorney General”; that a third refers to the duties of an “attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law,” which suggests an attorney already appointed under some other law; and a fourth that refers to appointment of “officials . . . to detect and prosecute crimes” and appears in a chapter that creates the FBI, not one that creates prosecutors’ offices.

Justice Thomas reasons that if “Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive”—in the person of the attorney general—“lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord,” and urges that “the lower courts should . . . answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.” U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon of Florida, where the prosecution of Trump for unlawful handling of classified documents is pending, has already heard arguments relating to both the creation of the special counsel’s office and Mr. Smith’s appointment.

If Congress had wished to allow the attorney general to create an office of special prosecutor, it would have done so with a statute as simple and direct as those that give the power to create offices to other cabinet secretaries—including the secretaries of transportation, agriculture, health and human services and education. It wouldn’t have relied on gossamer emanations from four statutes.

Proponents of the special counsel’s powers cite court cases to support their position. Among the most frequently cited is the Supreme Court’s opinion in U.S. v. Nixon (1974), which described special counsel Leon Jaworski—who, like Mr. Smith, was appointed by an attorney general—as having acted “pursuant to” a statute relied on by Jack Smith here. However, the issue of whether Jaworski was authorized to act wasn’t before the court in the Nixon case, which concerned only whether a dispute within the executive branch between the Justice Department and the president over a subpoena for tape recordings presented a justiciable issue.

Other cases holding that the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller was valid are from outside the circuit where Judge Cannon sits. She may regard them as persuasive, if she chooses, but they aren’t binding on her. Of course, neither are they binding on the appeals court within her circuit, or on the Supreme Court.

But isn’t this merely the sort of crabbed legalism that nonlawyers find infuriating and that should not be part of a discussion of momentous matters like the prosecution of Mr. Trump? No, for reasons best articulated by Robert Jackson, who was attorney general before FDR appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1941. In a 1940 address to a conference of U.S. attorneys, he described the immense and unchecked power that federal prosecutors have to investigate people, to interview their friends and relatives, to authorize their arrest and secure their prosecution.

He noted that the appointment of U.S. attorneys “from the very beginning has been safeguarded by presidential appointment, requiring confirmation of the Senate. . . . You are thus required to win an expression of confidence in your character by both the legislative and the executive branches of the government before assuming the responsibilities of a federal prosecutor.”

Jack Smith hasn’t passed that test, and with his record of having lost cases both at trial and on appeal because of his overreaching approach to criminal law, likely wouldn’t. At a minimum, these prosecutions should be handled by a duly appointed and confirmed U.S. attorney who has.

Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general, 2007-09, and as a U.S. district judge, 1988-2006. He joined a friend-of-the-court brief challenging both the creation of Mr. Smith’s office and his appointment in the Florida case.