Author Topic: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, Durham, Mar a Lago and related matters  (Read 230655 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Did we mention the new indictment is pure BS?

It rests on the assumption that Trump knew the reported outcome was true and accurate because, I guess, two or three people told him so in addition to all his opponents and the mainstream media. Even the expression, the big lie, presumed he believed the outcome to be true and accurate. Clearly he didn't and still doesn't.

That will be interesting to litigate in a federal court.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/lawyer-newest-indictment-gives-trump-legal-power-never/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
Previously Smith got a political conviction reversed 9-0 by the SCOTUS.   He could very well be headed for another crushing defeat.

Furthermore, as best as I can tell, Trump has been gifted a chance to relitigate the integrity of the election and the plausibility validity of Eastman's theories.

Regarding the latter, something I picked up (Turley?) is that the notion that "the recounts showed that Trump lost blah blah" misses the point-- which is that the wrong votes were counted both originally and in the recount.  For example, the PA Constitution says the legislature sets the rules, but the electoral bureaucracy made changes that admitted hundreds of thousands of additional votes.  This is not a stupid argument as best as I can tell.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
Working from memory here so I may be imprecise, but I gather she was part of a law firm where Hunter played a big role.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Working from memory here so I may be imprecise, but I gather she was part of a law firm where Hunter played a big role.

Yes, and sentenced j6 protesters to more than the prosecution asked for. Small hint of bias. Also contributed to Obama campaign. I wonder if that was before or after her appointment.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
Would love to have a link with precise description of her, her prior firm and Hunter.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
so what if the judge is Obama appointee
« Reply #1556 on: August 04, 2023, 08:40:46 AM »
that does not matter
it only matters when he/she is TRUMP APPOINTEE!!!!!

hypocracy

the Left media now state it does not matter who appointed the judge

they are arbitrators of the Constitution and all are of upmost impeccable integrity

as per CNN MSPCP

and probably PBS

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
https://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-did-judge-trump-224400905.html

It is a fact that Hunter Biden and Chutkan were both employed by, or partners of, BSF. It is also factual that BSF provided services to the Ukrainian oil company Burisma, on whose board Hunter Biden served.

Chutkan worked at BSF from 2002 until the time of her appointment to the D.C. Circuit by then U.S. President Barack Obama in June 2014. She was made a partner of the firm in 2007. Biden, meanwhile, held the title of counsel at BSF from 2010 to 2014.

After joining the board of Burisma in April 2014, as Hunter Biden described in his memoir, he recommended the consulting services of his law firm to help the company implement "corporate practices that were up to accepted ethical snuff." Burisma paid BSF at least $250,000 dollars for its work.

In sum, it is factual that both Hunter Biden and Chutkan worked under the umbrella of Boies Schiller Flexner between 2010 and 2014, and it is also true that BSF did business with Burisma via Hunter Biden in May 2014. As such, we rate this claim as "True."
« Last Edit: August 04, 2023, 10:37:45 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Daily Signal, Obama Judge Tanya Chutkan, Trump case
« Reply #1558 on: August 04, 2023, 11:15:36 AM »
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/08/03/4-things-know-about-obama-appointed-judge-presiding-new-trump-case/

People gathered all over the country last year to protest the violent murder by the police of an unarmed man. Some of those protesters became violent,” Chutkan said during an October 2021 court hearing. “But to compare the actions of people protesting, mostly peacefully, for civil rights, to those of a violent mob seeking to overthrow the lawfully elected government is a false equivalency and ignores a very real danger that the Jan. 6 riot posed to the foundation of our democracy.”

Chutkan has sentenced at least 38 people convicted of Jan. 6-related crimes to jail or prison terms, ranging from 10 days to more than five years, The Associated Press reported.

The AP has reported that Chutkan was the only judge of about two dozen presiding over prosecutions of some 600 Jan. 6 defendants who routinely imposed sentences that exceeded what federal prosecutors had asked for
« Last Edit: August 04, 2023, 11:20:43 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Jack Smith and Lois Lerner
« Reply #1559 on: August 04, 2023, 12:23:17 PM »
Excellent reporting by Katie Pavlich:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2023/08/03/how-former-irs-official-lois-lerner-is-tied-to-trumps-latest-indictment-n2626579

IRS Targeting was the scandal where I first realized civil war is possible.

Talk about militarizing the deep state...

If I read this correctly, Jack Smith is tied to it.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2023, 12:26:21 PM by DougMacG »



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
very interesting!  :-o

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile


AUGUST 10, 2023


Why Not Impose Protective Orders on All Politicians?
By Joshua Philipp

The plan by former President Donald Trump’s team to use the most recent indictment to expose evidence of election fraud in 2020 may be crushed by the Justice Department.

President Trump was indicted last week in Washington on four charges. It frames his claims that the election had been rigged, his attempts to litigate, to get dueling electors in place, and then his alleged involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, riots as a planned conspiracy.

The case will require prosecutors to prove that President Trump didn't, in fact, believe the 2020 elections were rigged. And his legal team was quick to fire back, saying they would use discovery and subpoenas to show the public every piece of evidence available—everything they can obtain—to show why the former president believed that the election was stolen.

But that plan may have ended already in the form of a protective order requested by the DOJ. That would mean while President Trump's team will still likely be able to use discovery and subpoenas to gain access to evidence, the information would be unlikely to see the light of day.

On Aug. 4, President Trump wrote on Truth Social, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”

The DOJ immediately labeled that a threat, and prosecutors requested that the U.S. district court judge in charge of the case issue a protective order.

But what’s interesting is that this protective order wouldn't protect them. It would protect the evidence in the case. And, in particular, it prevents that evidence from being shown to the public. Now, I don’t know how stopping the public from seeing court evidence resolves an alleged threat from Trump, but that’s their claim.

In laying out why they believe there should be a protective order, prosecutors said they’re going to hand over a “substantial” amount of evidence to President Trump’s legal team. Apparently, a lot of this information is “sensitive and confidential.”

If we go by the official narrative, we’ve been shown all the necessary evidence relating to Jan. 6 and alleged election fraud. We’re told that the courts and Congress all seem to agree that the official narrative is irrefutable. So why would sensitive or confidential information be harmful?

Was this forwarded to you?

Sign-up for a all access digital subscription, or register for a free account.

Wouldn’t any evidence that hasn’t been shown to the public just help their case—maybe it could even help restore public trust in the institutions. And wouldn’t that be a great thing, right ahead of the 2024 elections?

That is, unless the evidence shows otherwise. And the real irony here is that if the judge chooses to keep it hidden from the public, much of the public is going to believe that’s the case.

On the part of President Trump’s legal team, they say that his Truth Social post wasn't about the prosecution but in response to “dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs.” They also claim it represented “the definition of free speech.”

A hearing has been scheduled for Aug. 11 by the judge in the case.

On Aug. 6, President Trump requested that the judge recuse herself, and for the case to be moved out of Washington. He wrote, “There is no way I can get a fair trial with the judge 'assigned' to the ridiculous freedom of speech/fair elections case."

He also said that special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the case, is interfering with the 2024 elections by choosing to prosecute now.

Of course, the former president has a reputation for his “mean tweets.” The question is whether he should be able to comment on the case—and show his side publicly—when he will inevitably be attacked by establishment news outlets, and others on the case. For context, Mr. Smith made public scorching accusations against President Trump in the indictment.

Democrat politicians and Republican primary opponents have repeatedly attacked the former president. If it’s wrong for him to verbally attack in response, then it's also wrong for them to attack President Trump.

Maybe they should all have protective orders, if that’s the case.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
Special Counsel Weiss
« Reply #1564 on: August 12, 2023, 07:09:55 AM »
https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/11/attorney-irs-whistleblower-david-weiss-special-counsel-hunter-biden/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29912&pnespid=v6t4FXpHL7kKh6HFpGS0GYmDvxmjC5wsc7LgzLBm9EVmIvdVbqDyeLRghJBKEUWD.xZO6qok

https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/11/tom-cotton-justice-department-refile-charges-hunter-biden-tax/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29912&pnespid=rLZkGS0YJr4IgqLEtDC5D5vduE_tCJloMLK3wrF1skRm4toFt5YX5cGGIiwh7jR8kQbhixvk

https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/11/jonathan-turley-merrick-garland-special-counsel-hunter-biden/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29912&pnespid=5qI4CytILv8fyOXd.GimQoqMpUz2CYAnNeK5wuIwqRxmob5P2_5qwSplXJwvafetyJXY57fk

=====================

I'm seeing that Weiss does not meet the requirements for being chosen Special Counsel:

a) SC must come from outside government!

b) Must have a good reputation for integrity.  Weiss's covering for the Biden's goes back to protecting Joe from a donations bundling scheme in 2008, not to mention the immunity scheme for Hunter, letting statute of limitations expire etc etc.

===============

Andy McCarthy

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1690055160574447616?s=46&t=BsNU80vOiU0wvZaktSPHyQ&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230812_Weekend_Jolt&utm_term=Jolt-Smart

THIS IS A FARCE:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/garlands-special-counsel-appointment-in-the-biden-probe-is-a-farce/?bypass_key=L2RBRVMzZWxBUUs2MTZzbktORENtUT09OjpWRVE1ZUVnMmNHTkJOQzlYTDFkR1dYWk5WR3h4VVQwOQ%3D%3D
« Last Edit: August 12, 2023, 07:16:49 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile


I also hear there is not a damn thing anyone can do to force or pressure  Garland to change this pick

while the law states shall be chosen from outside government there is no remedy to force Garland to do otherwise.

leftist shysters always give us the middle finger.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
As we knew announcing Ga indictment timing would be coordinated
« Reply #1566 on: August 12, 2023, 10:36:24 AM »
of course timing again is the Dem playbook

announce the Weiss appointment and then of course to distract from that, blast the left MSM headlines  next week by announcing Georgia indictment

 :roll:


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
Prof Turley points out the obvious reasons why Weiss appointment is a sham
« Reply #1567 on: August 13, 2023, 07:13:27 AM »
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4149641-shoeless-joe-weiss-and-the-fixing-of-the-hunter-biden-game/

This AM CNN points out that Republicans called for appointment of special counsel and now they are complaining about an appointment of a Special Counsel

MSPCP people joked about Republicans anger at Weiss being appointed and ask who do they want "Rudy Guliani" while laughing hysterically

MSM ignores the obvious conflict of interests as pointed about above


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Re: Prof Turley points out the obvious reasons why Weiss appointment is a sham
« Reply #1568 on: August 13, 2023, 08:03:51 AM »
They 'elevated' a US Attorney to have the power of a US Attorney, virtually meaningless, and chose one hand-picked by the target, diabolical at best, already proven to not be 'independent' and under the thumb of Garland and Biden.

Same gang chose an 'independent' counsel for Trump biased against him, and ended up with a judge biased against him - and only one side is offended by all this.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2023, 08:45:05 AM by DougMacG »



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
Jesse Waters: Cong Dems destroy J6 impeachment evidence
« Reply #1571 on: August 14, 2023, 06:12:11 AM »
This is what I have been asking about!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689443497076555776

I'm not on X/Twitter.  Is there some other link with this?

IMO this is a HUGE deal-- they destroy evidence that Trump could use to defend himself on the J6 charges!!!

Let's be relentless on this!!!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Re: Cong Dems destroy J6 impeachment evidence 2.0
« Reply #1573 on: August 14, 2023, 03:13:37 PM »
Exculpatory.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
The Left
« Reply #1574 on: August 15, 2023, 06:05:17 AM »
changes DON

to MAFIA DON

yeah right  :roll:

Desantis could run on me, or the MAFIA DON
 
or me vs. Al Capone.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Re: AMcC: GA charges the most enduring
« Reply #1576 on: August 15, 2023, 07:37:11 AM »
https://nypost.com/2023/08/14/out-of-all-indictments-georgia-is-the-most-perilous-threat-to-trump/

Also see:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/is-the-looming-georgia-indictment-the-most-perilous-for-trump/?lctg=547fd5293b35d0210c8df7b9&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MJ_20230815&utm_term=Jolt-Smart

I respect his opinion and observations but he is not putting much there for specifics.

My belief is that Trump was trying to find and "invalidate" invalid Biden votes, with a pressing deadline.

How do you do that? By making phone calls and by sending people there to look into it.  If they crossed the line, then those infringements are the crime, not proof of a great conspiracy.

Hear all of his words at the time and since, in his mind he believes he was cheated and was trying to make that right.

"The Big Lie" comes from a political attack on the Iraq war.  Media and Democrat operatives, redundancy acknowledged, made the case for war out to be lying, not just a mistake.  23 reasons in the Iraq war resolution, supported by John kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, all lies. With the complicity of the media, that works in politics but not in a fair criminal trial where the criteria is much stricter and more scrutinized.

Funny, the Georgia recount found thousands of votes counted wrong, against Trump's favor, without looking into most of the issues presented.  The margin dropped from 14,000 to 12,000 out of 5 million cast.
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-2020-election-results/2020/11/19/936647882/georgia-releases-hand-recount-results-affirming-bidens-lead

Questioning that right up to the deadline is standard fare.  Seriously, what Democrat wouldn't have pursued that, shoe on the other foot?

That said, he is not saying the case has merit; he is saying the charge is perhaps the most enduring relative to the other cases.

Most likely, this will all come down to venue, judge and jury selection.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2023, 07:40:56 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
Good analysis, useful citation.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
WSJ on the GA indictment
« Reply #1578 on: August 15, 2023, 09:03:20 AM »
Georgia Case Presents Unique Challenges for Trump—and Prosecutors
RICO charges afford prosecutors opportunity to present to jury a sweeping narrative, but could prove unwieldy
By Corinne Ramey and James Fanelli
Aug. 15, 2023 9:28 am ET

The indictment in Georgia against Donald Trump for racketeering and a dozen other alleged offenses represents the most ambitious and sweeping case brought against the former president, and is likely to pose unprecedented legal challenges—both for Trump and the prosecutors.

The case, brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, centers on allegations that Trump, along with 18 others, participated in a sweeping criminal enterprise to change the 2020 presidential election in his favor, in violation of the state’s antiracketeering law.

Trump has denied wrongdoing. The former president has called Willis partisan and said he didn’t tamper with the election.

The Georgia law is modeled on the 1970 federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which gave federal prosecutors a new tool to pursue the mafia by tying mob bosses to the conduct of subordinates within their criminal organizations. Prosecutors in New York and elsewhere successfully used the federal RICO law throughout the following decades to bring down several prominent mafia families and other criminal enterprises. 

Georgia’s law is in some respects broader than the federal version, as it includes a longer list of underlying offenses that can qualify as a basis for alleging that a group of defendants engaged in a joint criminal enterprise.

“Georgia’s RICO statute, because of the breadth of it, allows the prosecutor to tell the whole story: the who, what, when, where and how,” said Gwen Keyes Fleming, a former DeKalb County District Attorney.

Former President Donald Trump is facing four separate indictments at both state and federal levels. WSJ breaks down each of the indictments and what they mean for his 2024 presidential campaign. Photo Illustration: Annie Zhao
Special counsel Jack Smith’s recent federal indictment of Trump for allegedly seeking to overturn the 2020 election hits some of the same themes as the Georgia case, but with a concise, targeted approach.

By contrast, Willis’s indictment, put forth chronologically in a series of alleged “acts,” lays out a vast and sprawling conspiracy to subvert the election, with Trump the alleged political equivalent of a mob boss.

“If Jack Smith’s tightly focused indictment against Trump is Hemingway, Fani Willis’s sweeping 19-defendant, 41-count charging document is Dickens,” said Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “It’s as large and complex as the alleged conspiracy itself was.”

The large number of alleged participants in the scheme also potentially gives Willis, a Democrat, more leverage. In the typical RICO case, prosecutors often look to secure plea deals from some defendants in exchange for their testimony against the highest-profile targets. Monday’s 98-page indictment suggests prosecutors already have cooperating witnesses, including some people identified in the document as unindicted co-conspirators.

Another prominent feature of Georgia’s racketeering law: A conviction comes with a mandatory minimum prison term of five years.

“If he gets convicted, he’s going to jail,” said Jerry Froelich, a former federal prosecutor and Atlanta-based criminal defense lawyer.

If Trump wins the next presidential election, he could attempt to pardon himself in any federal case or steer the Justice Department to retreat from Smith’s charges. In Georgia, he would lack the ability to wipe away a state conviction or prison term. Even if Trump were to seek a state pardon, he wouldn’t be eligible to do so until after serving a sentence for any conviction. In Georgia, any such pardon would be determined by a state board, not the governor.

The inability to dangle the promise of a pardon to others involved in the Georgia case could also make it harder for Trump to keep alleged co-conspirators and co-defendants from seeking cooperation deals with Willis’s office. 

Willis, however, also faces challenges. The large number of defendants could bog down trial scheduling, delaying any proceedings. Jury selection could also drag on for months, due to the political nature of the case and the anticipated length of a potential trial. 


“The federal cases are more likely to go to trial quickly, and not get bogged down by multiple defendants and arguments,” said John Fishwick Jr., a former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia. The Georgia case, he said, “is the dream case to delay.”

Another pending case illustrates the point. Last year, Willis brought a 56-count RICO indictment of 27 defendants associated with a violent street gang. Some defendants have accepted plea deals, but jury selection for the remaining defendants began in January and is expected to last for another month or two. The trial is expected to take between six and nine months.

Brian Steel, an Atlanta-based lawyer who represents one of the defendants in the case, said RICO prosecutions with a large number of defendants can be logistically challenging and move slowly. He has already argued weeks of pretrial motions and still has 50 more left to be heard by a judge. “And that’s just me, that’s just my client,” Steel said.

Trump could seek to move the case to federal court, further delaying proceedings. Such a move would require the approval of a judge. The former president made a similar request in his New York prosecution, involving the payment of hush money to a porn star. It was rejected, on the grounds that Trump wasn’t carrying out his presidential duties in the alleged hush-money scheme. Some lawyers say Trump may have stronger arguments for moving the Georgia case, because it is much more directly tied to the presidency.


In this courtroom sketch, Former President Donald Trump is taking an oath in federal court during a plea hearing earlier this month on charges that he orchestrated a plot to try to overturn his 2020 election loss. PHOTO: JANE ROSENBERG/REUTERS
Trump, who has now been indicted in four separate cases, was first hit with charges in New York in April. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged him with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, alleging he orchestrated a scheme to bolster his 2016 presidential campaign by paying hush money to suppress potentially damaging sexual allegations. As a first-time offender, he would be unlikely to face jail time if convicted in that case.

Trump was hit with his first federal charges in June, when Smith alleged he kept possession of classified documents that he knew he shouldn’t have retained after leaving the White House. Smith later added charges that Trump and his aides sought to have surveillance footage from his Mar-a-Lago club deleted so it couldn’t be turned over to a grand jury.

The special counsel brought his separate and more sweeping case this month, alleging Trump conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election to remain in power.

Trump, the 2024 front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, pleaded not guilty to the other indictments and accused the prosecutors of seeking to interfere with his electoral prospects.

Write to Corinne Ramey at corinne.ramey@wsj.com and James Fanelli at james.fanelli@wsj.com
« Last Edit: August 15, 2023, 01:23:35 PM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Seems to me RICO is how the vote cheat investigation should have been pursued.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
"Seems to me RICO is how the vote cheat investigation should have been pursued"

great thought

*if only* every email, text, phone call, tapes, money could be followed like they do to Trump and other Republicans we could see the mafia style vote fixing around the country in a totally coordinated way provided by an army of DNCers.

Dem shysters never investigate themselves ......of course

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
Dershowtiz assesses
« Reply #1581 on: August 15, 2023, 03:46:49 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
AMcC rips GA RICO charge
« Reply #1582 on: August 15, 2023, 06:34:53 PM »
Fani Willis’s Flawed RICO Charge against Trump

Left: Former president and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at campaign rally in Erie, Pa., July 29, 2023. Right: Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis speaks to the media after a Grand Jury brought back indictments against former President Donald Trump, in Atlanta, Ga., August 14, 2023. (Lindsay DeDario, Elijah Nouvelage/Reuters)
Share
555 Comments

Listen
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
August 15, 2023 3:15 PM
The DA is turning to the organized-crime law because she can’t charge an overarching conspiracy to achieve a criminal objective.
Iwas waiting for the Fulton County, Ga., indictment of former president Donald Trump — and, it seems, a cast of thousands — with an open mind. Fani Willis in Atlanta, like Alvin Bragg in Manhattan, is first and foremost an elected Democrat and, in this era (which I hope fades away soon) it is good politics for an elected Democrat to wield the law-enforcement powers with which she has been trusted against the party’s nemesis. That, naturally, does not make for good law enforcement — quite the opposite.

On the other hand, as I opined yesterday, in our federalist constitutional system, elections are principally conducted and policed by the states. As a result, I thought it was likely Willis would have an easier time with at least some aspects of her election-interference case than Biden Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith will have with his. Because the federal government is not the first line of defense when it comes to policing elections, federal criminal law does not much address that function. Ergo, Smith has to apply legal concepts — fraud, obstruction, and civil rights — that were not enacted for the election-integrity purpose to which he is applying them. Where you come out in the hot debate over that depends on how well you think the laws invoked fit the facts alleged. Willis, to the contrary, is a state official responsible for enforcing specific election-integrity laws. I calculated that she would be able to invoke statutes that better fit the conduct at issue.

To some degree, that is true. In the main, though, Willis is trying to make a splash by applying not election laws but RICO — i.e., Georgia’s version of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (the better-known federal version of which was first enacted in 1971).

I have other points to make about the indictment, but to avoid turning this post into a tome, I’ll start with RICO and address other subjects in one or more additional posts.

DA Willis’s claims of experience in organized-crime cases notwithstanding, I don’t think she grasps RICO. If she does, then she is using it in lieu of the simpler crime that any prosecutor would prefer to charge — plain old conspiracy — in order to try to paper over the big hole in her case.

The hole is that the objective of the schemes described in her 98-page indictment — namely, to retain Trump in power despite his election loss — is not a crime per se. Of course, if people pursue a lawful objective through illegal means, they may commit crimes in implementing those means. But a conspiracy, very simply, is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. The conspiracy need not be successful to be prosecutable because, in conspiracy, the crime is the agreement itself not the crime the conspirators agreed to commit. If we agree to rob the bank but the police get wind of the plan and arrest us on the way to the bank, we are guilty of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, even though we can’t be prosecuted for actual bank robbery. That said, though, the crucial point is that the objective of the agreement must be a crime. If a group of people take egregious actions in the pursuit of an objective that is not a crime, there is no conspiracy — even though, collaterally, some of the egregious actions may amount to crimes if they violate penal statutes.

Willis seeks to obscure this problem by charging a RICO conspiracy. I assume she figures it works as a vehicle for tying together a narrative about a large group of people involved in various types of bad behavior. But she misses the point of what RICO is meant to do.

Prior to 1971, the challenge in prosecuting organized crime was that these groups were involved in disparate schemes — murder, extortion, gambling, prostitution, stolen goods, etc. — that were difficult to indict and try as one case. There would be too much “prejudicial spillover” on, say, the gambling operatives if they were forced to be in a trial with the murderers. So you’d have to indict different cases to address each different criminal scheme — which meant more opportunities for the crime syndicates to intimidate witnesses, tamper with jurors, etc.

The innovation of RICO is that the essence of the crime is membership in the group, not the component schemes carried out by the group.

In RICO parlance, the group is the enterprise. It often is but need not be criminal in nature. By definition, an enterprise is merely “an association in fact” — a broad definition that could apply to groups that run the gamut from innately illicit (e.g., a mafia family) to legitimate (e.g., labor union or political party), and from regimented (say, a militia) to loosely knit (say, a street gang). The enterprise becomes a RICO enterprise if it conducts its affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity — which generally means two or more felonies (usually a lot more) of the kind that are staples of organized crime. (See §1961(1), the capacious federal definition of racketeering activity. I also note: There are other kinds of RICO offenses that are not germane to our discussion.)

The gravamen of a RICO crime is being a member of the enterprise that commits crimes, not the commission of any particular crime the enterprise carries out. Concrete example: Let’s say the Gambino mafia “family” commits murder, extortion, etc. — the usual run of mob crimes. If you are indicted for RICO conspiracy in that context, the crime is not the killing of X rival mobster, or the extortion of Y businessman (although you probably would be indicted for those crimes in separate counts if you were personally complicit in them). The crime is to intentionally conduct or participate in the affairs of the Gambino family. The prosecutor must show that you did that through the commission of crimes (i.e., the pattern of racketeering activity). But the gist of the offense is the enterprise.

This is where I believe Willis’s theory founders.

In fact, she gets it wrong right out of the starting gate, describing Trump and his 18 alleged co-racketeers as a “criminal organization.” This is just dumb. If you could prove they conspired to do something illegal, you could accurately call them members of a criminal pact; but the 19 defendants are not even members of a single organization, much less one that is innately criminal.

Moreover, from the prosecution’s perspective, there need not be a “criminal organization” in order for there to be a RICO enterprise — as we’ve seen, the latter can be a lawful entity as long as it is an association in fact. As a prosecutor, it is hard enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of offenses that must be established to secure a conviction; so the state should never allege something it does not need to prove, let alone something that cannot be proved because it isn’t true.

But more important, the 19 people charged have no driving interest in being part of the group that Willis frames as “the enterprise.” Their objective was to keep Trump in power. It was that objective, and not the sustaining of any group, that brought them together; and once that objective was attained or conclusively defeated, the group — to the dubious extent it really was an identifiable group — would (and did) melt away. That’s another good sign that you’re not dealing with a RICO enterprise. The vast run of such enterprises are in it for the money — you want to be in an enterprise because it generates lots of income over time. And the law calls for prosecutors to prove that RICO enterprises are continuing threats, so an economic purpose and the carrying on of activities (criminal and otherwise) to sustain the gravy train are the fabric of a RICO enterprise.

Jack Smith’s federal election-interference case, of which I am not a fan, is nonetheless a better case because he identifies real crimes that he alleges the conspirators agreed to commit in the course of retaining Trump in power. Smith doesn’t claim that retaining Trump in power is a crime per se, and he fully acknowledges that the objective of retaining Trump in power was the motive for the crimes that are charged. But the conspiracies he alleges are violations of federal penal law — defrauding the United States, corruptly obstructing Congress, and undermining the civil rights of voters. I have my quarrels regarding whether the facts he alleges establish those crimes as they have been construed by the courts; but I freely concede that they are crimes.

Willis, by contrast, is turning to RICO because she can’t charge an overarching conspiracy to achieve a criminal objective. Instead, she can prove a lot of chicanery carried out in the service of a lawful aim. But alleging that Trump and his 18 co-defendants orchestrated this chicanery as part of an “enterprise” does not solve her problem.

I should hasten to add that Willis charges other conspiracy offenses besides RICO, including against Trump, in her 41-count indictment. I will come to them in subsequent posts. Here, I’ve confined myself to the RICO offense, Count One, which runs 71 pages, including 161 alleged overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy — the framework of the state’s case.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Re: Dershowtiz assesses
« Reply #1583 on: August 15, 2023, 08:08:15 PM »


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE9TBFX5pUg

My take from Dershowitz:
Prosecutors must prove Trump knew the election was perfectly accurate. (Not possible)
If Fulton county jury makes a flimsy conviction, State appeals court could easily reverse.
Proving his state of mind opens up all the alleged evidence of irregularities, making it all public and newly relevant.
Prosecutor wants the case done in 6 months. Dershowitz says this has never been done.


Looks like it can't be done before the election.  Just one more thing hanging over it all.  The fact that the case is flimsy, my words, means it strengthens Trump's case to his supporters that he is a victim and they are the real target.

100% of hardcore Trump supporters believe the election was stolen. It's definitional. 
« Last Edit: August 15, 2023, 08:11:37 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Byron York on the "fake electors" charge
« Reply #1584 on: August 16, 2023, 06:39:28 AM »
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-indictment-four-too-much

In a nutshell, there was a lawsuit pending and no remedy available if an alternative set of electors had not met on that day.  It was all done and covered publicly.  All felonies in the eyes of the prosecutor.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: August 16, 2023, 10:49:27 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/the-brains-behind-fake-trump-electors-was-once-a-liberal-democrat/ar-AA1fmaoR
previous liberal attorney included as lawyer participating in Jan 6 elector strategy:
Kenneth J. Chesebro

"“He was not making good-faith legal arguments for his client,” said Tribe, who said he has been distressed to see his former mentee emerge as an architect of Trump’s plans to cling to power. “He was inventing legal fiction that paid no attention to the law and creating a pretext for a conspiracy to steal an election.”

This coming from a partisan left wing Democrat Lawrence the Tribe
who BTW lost both impeachment cases in the Senate.

and only won in a Democrat controlled House.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
By this standard, Alan Dershowitz would be in jail
« Reply #1587 on: August 17, 2023, 06:35:48 AM »
By this standard, Alan Dershowitz would be in jail, by his own admission.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12413181/ALAN-DERSHOWITZ-Al-Gore-2000-Donald-Trump-indictment.html

And with that, I'm tired of looking into the TDS court cases.

In the 1990s I studied and learned the Clinton scandals backward and forward.  It did me no good whatsoever.

I'm tired of the Biden scandals too.  It looks like it was over $50 million. Largest in history. Joe was more than in on it. Appointment of Weiss is a violation of federal law.  Garland should be impeached. Weiss too. If the articles support it.   Make the timing of the Senate trial be as politically disadvantageous to the Democrats as possible.  And move on. 

This is all important but more important is that both parties are currently picking the wrong candidate for the next 4 years.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2023, 06:39:03 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
WSJ: The curious case of Mark Meadows
« Reply #1588 on: August 17, 2023, 11:52:07 AM »
The Curious Case of Mark Meadows, Told Through Two Trump Indictments
Meadows is seeking to move the charges in Georgia to federal court claiming he was working in his official capacity
By Isaac YuFollow
Aug. 17, 2023 7:39 am ET

In the federal indictment against Donald Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Mark Meadows goes unnamed and appears just four times, referenced only as “the Defendant’s chief of staff.” There is no suggestion that Meadows is a criminal.

In new charges announced in Georgia this week, however, Meadows’s alleged actions are described in much more detail—and he is charged with two crimes, one of 19 co-defendants including Trump.

How can Meadows play such a small part in one story, but commit prosecutable offenses in the other?

The answer lies in the diverging approaches prosecutors took in each case and the nature of the charges levied. In the federal case, Trump is the only defendant, accused of defrauding the government, impeding civil rights and obstruction. None of his six alleged co-conspirators are named, though most are identifiable as members of his circle. Despite being Trump’s right-hand man in the months after the election, however, Meadows doesn’t match any of the co-conspirators’ descriptions.

The Georgia prosecution, however, is a racketeering case, with Trump charged as being at the center of a criminal enterprise. Under Georgia’s RICO law, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has the power to cast a wider net and implicate any player—big or small—who took part in the alleged conspiracy. Any act that furthers the alleged enterprise, which could be as simple as making a phone call or sending an email, can place an individual in legal jeopardy if done to advance the conspiracy’s broader goals.



The federal indictment does not name Meadows directly, instead referring to him four times by his title, 'Chief of Staff,' and mostly in minor references (top); the Georgia indictment (bottom) paints a broader portrait of his role.
While Trump spent his final months in the Oval Office, it was his allies who jetted in and out of contested states, delivering the marching orders for their allies on the ground, organizing slates of fraudulent electors and imploring local officials to unlawfully alter vote counts, the Georgia indictment alleges. To this end, the indictment lays out 161 prosecutable acts taken by those allies, including those allegedly committed by Meadows.

The differences in Meadows’s role between the two cases are the latest twist on how the chief of staff fits in the investigations and prosecutions in the aftermath of Jan. 6.

“It really comes down to the power of the RICO conspiracy,” said Jeffrey Cohen, a professor at Boston College Law School. “The Jack Smith indictment is much more circumscribed and charges discrete conspiracies, whereas the Georgia indictment is really charging a RICO conspiracy, which is a much broader tool.”

Trump has denied wrongdoing in both cases and called the probes “witch hunts.” A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on this article. The Fulton County District Attorney’s Office didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Meadows’s attorneys, Joseph M. Englert and George J. Terwilliger III, argued in a court filing Tuesday that the Georgia case should be dismissed or at minimum moved from state court to the federal system because the charges relate to Meadows’s conduct when he was a federal official.

“Nothing Mr. Meadows is alleged in the indictment to have done is criminal per se: arranging Oval Office meetings, contacting state officials on the President’s behalf, visiting a state government building, and setting up a phone call for the President,” they wrote. “One would expect a Chief of Staff to the President of the United States to do these sorts of things.”

Terwilliger and Englert didn’t respond to requests for comment.



These excerpts from the federal (top) and Georgia (bottom) indictments describe Meadows at the Cobb County Civic Center in December 2020, though he is only named in the Georgia indictment.

Before joining the Trump administration in March 2020, Meadows represented a North Carolina district in the House, where he had risen to prominence as a leader of the conservative Freedom Caucus. As Trump’s chief of staff, Meadows was embedded in the former president’s inner circle during the peak of the 2020 campaign and in the crucial weeks following the election.

Meadows’s role as a liaison between Trump and other officials in the election’s aftermath came to light during the testimony of Meadows’s former aide Cassidy Hutchinson in a hearing before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Hutchinson testified that Meadows knew “things might get real, real bad” and at one point requested a pardon from Trump.

CASE AGAINST TRUMP IN GEORGIA

Trump and His Orbit: The Scope of Georgia’s Election Case Explained

Meadows declined to testify before the panel himself. In December 2021, the Democratic-controlled House voted mostly along party lines to hold Meadows in contempt for defying that subpoena, though the Justice Department declined to prosecute him.

Prosecutors have a high degree of discretion over how they pursue their cases: Smith has become known during his time as a federal prosecutor for cases that are more streamlined, while Willis has often opted for sweeping cases, including many under RICO laws, that implicate numerous defendants.

Much is unknown about Meadows’s interactions in either case. Meadows did testify in Smith’s probe after Trump’s efforts to block him on executive privilege grounds failed. He originally declined to testify in Georgia and was eventually ordered to do so by a state judge in South Carolina, where Meadows is now a resident.


Former President Donald Trump is facing four separate indictments at both state and federal levels. WSJ breaks down each of the indictments and what they mean for his 2024 presidential campaign. Photo Illustration: Annie Zhao
Willis’s probe in Georgia paints a broader portrait of Meadows, who is charged with two crimes, racketeering and soliciting a public official to violate his oath. The indictment cites him more than a dozen times and describes in much greater detail his alleged actions to further an election conspiracy.

Beyond taking part in several strategy meetings with Trump, Meadows allegedly texted a Fulton County investigator, offering campaign funds to help speed up the county’s signature verification process. He also worked with Trump to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and at another point asked Rep. Scott Perry (R., Pa.) to help him contact leaders in the Pennsylvania state legislature, according to the indictment.

Most of Meadows’s actions as described by the Georgia indictment go unmentioned in Smith’s. The only apparent overlap between the two indictments is a single episode in which Meadows visits Cobb County, Ga., in an attempt to observe a signature matching audit process.

Meadows, who texted Trump that he thought the officials he observed were “conducting themselves in an exemplary fashion,” didn’t appear to reassure the former president.

“They are slow walking the signature verification in Georgia,” Trump tweeted the next day. “They don’t want results to get out prior to January 6th. They know what they are trying so hard to hide. Terrible people!”

Lindsay Wise and Sadie Gurman contributed to this article.

Write to Isaac Yu at isaac.yu@wsj.com


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
for the most part I agree with Barr

except I am not clear why he did not pursue Hunter Biden allegations. more seriously

I missed the early part of his interview with recently when this question was asked

I suspect Barr was too concerned with his and the DOJ image of not wanting to look too parisan.

I agree with him on Trump - he will drag us all down

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
AMcC: The Chicanery of the Hunter Biden Plea Bargain
« Reply #1591 on: August 19, 2023, 07:22:26 AM »


The Chicanery of the Hunter Biden Plea Bargain
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
August 19, 2023 6:30 AM

‘Special counsel’ David Weiss has done everything in his power to make the DOJ’s investigation of Biden family corruption disappear.
Sham special counsel David Weiss could not have more royally screwed up the Hunter Biden case. But of course, if that was the plan, it’s not really a screwup, right?

Back in Judge Maryellen Noreika’s Delaware courtroom this week, we found the prosecutor still flailing in the miasma of his imploded schemes. At issue was the corrupt “diversion agreement” that Weiss, on behalf of the president’s Justice Department, executed with the president’s son: the pact whereby Weiss gifted Hunter not merely a complete pass on a gun felony punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment, but a total immunity bath — no prosecution for bribery, money laundering, tax evasion, failing to register as a foreign agent, or any other crimes arising out of the Biden family business of peddling Joe Biden’s political influence to operatives of corrupt and anti-American regimes.

Having been humiliated by Judge Noreika’s exposure of Biden Justice Department corruption, Weiss is now posing as a tough guy who insists the diversion is null and void because Hunter did not fulfill a separate plea agreement that called for him to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges — not content with eschewing easily provable tax felonies, tough guy Weiss also promised to push for a no-jail sentence.

This would be quite hilarious if it weren’t so infuriating.

As it happens, the public will be spared from the worst of Weiss’s machinations, at least in the short term. But that is no thanks to Weiss. He’d like you to think he’s a born-again prosecutorial dynamo after last week’s charade, in which Merrick Garland pretended to name him a special counsel. In reality, Weiss remains a high-ranking Biden Justice Department official who is ineligible to be a special counsel — at least by regulation as opposed to Garland’s hocus-pocus. A special counsel is an attorney brought in from outside the government, while Weiss is the Delaware U.S. attorney. A special counsel is brought in because the Justice Department has a conflict of interest, and Weiss is a high-ranking Justice Department official. A special counsel would have indicted the case by now, and Weiss has not. Nothing has changed.

No, Hunter will be denied his “stay out of jail free forever” card because of the actions of the court, not the prosecutor. Essentially, since the executive branch won’t follow Justice Department guidelines when dealing with the president’s son, we have to rely on the judiciary to do it. First, Judge Noreika derailed the plea agreement by asking a few simple questions about its blatant irregularities. And now the court’s probation office has refused to approve the diversion agreement that runs afoul of Justice Department policy against diversion for gun crimes.

We’ll get to the Probation Department’s intervention in due course. First though, with all the delusional chatter about how Weiss’s special-counsel appointment is a boon for the Biden “investigation,” we must explore in detail the depth of his skullduggery.

Weiss Has Been Disappearing the Biden Case for Five Years

You can’t blame Hunter Biden’s lawyers for these antics. Their job is to get the best deal possible for their client. Weiss and the Biden Justice Department, by contrast, are duty bound to enforce the criminal law with appropriate vigor, consistent with DOJ guidelines that would have called for felony charges and a felony plea to the most serious, readily provable offense.

In our adversarial system, this is how prosecutors vindicate the public’s interests in the rule of law and equal treatment. Weiss and the Biden DOJ, to the contrary, acted as Hunter’s second set of defense lawyers. Predictably, given the Justice Department’s impossible conflict of interest in this case, Weiss sought to serve and protect the president. On the surface, that meant insulating Hunter from real prosecution. The main objective, however, was to steer the “ongoing investigation” away from Hunter’s dear old dad. To label the DOJ’s Joe Biden whitewash “the Hunter Biden plea deal” is like calling a green-new-boondoggle “the Inflation Reduction Act.”

To reiterate, Weiss has never indicted the case because he’s intentionally disappearing the case. The failure to file formal charges lets the statute of limitations run. This Garland/Weiss gambit has already achieved much of its purpose. The most damaging evidence implicating Joe Biden is the sale of his political influence during his years as Obama administration vice president. Thanks to Weiss’s “don’t indict” game plan, the statute of limitations (six years for tax crimes, five years for all other crimes) has rendered time-barred any and all criminal offenses committed from 2014 through 2017. The IRS and FBI agents who were actually trying to make the case believe the scheme petered out in 2019, when Joe’s 2020 presidential bid forced the family business to go dark. Pretty soon, then, there will be nothing left to charge: Even if Weiss finally manages to choreograph a face-saving filing of trivial charges against Hunter, the clock will still run out on Joe’s criminal exposure. Mission accomplished.

Since Weiss’s aim was to sabotage the case, that’s what the agreements attendant to Hunter’s plea bargain were structured to achieve.

Weiss’s strategy required keeping the plea agreement (tax misdemeanors) completely separate from the diversion agreement (gun felony). One wonders how, hearing Weiss pine in court on Tuesday that the diversion agreement is voided by the failure of the plea agreement — as if the two agreements were interdependent —Judge Noreika avoided falling off the bench in spasms of laughter.

Hiding the Ball from the Court

A diversion agreement is like any other written contract: It is signed by the parties, with each giving something of value as consideration, mutually locking in the other party’s commitment. Here, the Biden Justice Department agreed to defer and eventually dismiss the gun charge, while Hunter agreed, among other things, to waive indictment and abide by the two years’ probation term. That’s a contract.

And here’s the significant part: Because Weiss wanted the diversion agreement to be separate from the plea agreement and stand on its own, the diversion agreement does not mention the plea agreement. That’s now a problem for Weiss because of a so-called completeness clause that he included in the diversion agreement (p. 8, para. 19) but disingenuously omitted from the plea agreement:

This agreement sets forth all of the terms of the Agreement between the United States and Biden. It constitutes the complete and final agreement between the United States and Biden in this matter. There are no other agreements, written or otherwise, modifying the terms, conditions, or obligations of this Agreement. No future modifications of or additions to this Agreement, in whole or in part, shall be valid unless they are set forth in writing and signed by the United States, Biden, and Biden’s counsel. [Emphasis added.]

How can Weiss now say with a straight face that the validity of the diversion agreement is dependent upon the successful completion of the plea agreement? The Justice Department expressly and unambiguously stated that there were no other written or oral agreements that modified the terms of the diversion agreement. The studiously unmentioned plea agreement thus has no effect on the diversion agreement.

Now, why did Weiss stick the completeness provision in the diversion agreement but not the plea agreement? Because he was hiding the ball from the court.

The Justice Department always puts a completeness clause in plea agreements. Defendants often have buyer’s remorse about plea deals, especially if the sentence subsequently imposed by the judge ends up being more harsh than anticipated. Many thus come back to court insisting that they would never have pled guilty were it not for some side deal that somehow went unmentioned in the plea agreement. Courts reject these claims out of hand because of the completeness clause. That’s why the Justice Department insists on including it.

Except, of course, in the case of the president’s son. For Hunter, Weiss cooked up something vaguely resembling a completeness clause, clearly hoping the judge would skim it inattentively, if at all. But the clause (Plea Agreement, p.6, para. 13) is dodgy. This becomes clear when it is compared to the standard, ironclad completeness clause in the diversion agreement (excerpted above). Noreika noticed. It was a tipoff that Weiss was trying to pull a fast one.

The most important provision in any plea agreement — other than the precise description of the offenses to which the defendant is agreeing to plead guilty — is the immunity clause. That’s where the government lays out, with what is supposed to be clarity, the crimes and potential crimes for which it is promising the defendant will not be prosecuted. But in the Hunter plea agreement, there is no immunity provision.

Why? Because Weiss was trying to hide it from the judge, hoping she’d be a rubber stamp.

Here, we come to another big difference between a plea agreement and a diversion agreement: The judge has to approve the plea agreement — federal law so mandates. After all, the plea agreement is the basis on which the judge will find the defendant guilty and impose a sentence. By contrast, the judge does not sign off on a diversion agreement. Diversion is just a matter of prosecutorial discretion: The Justice Department agrees not to prosecute on a charge if the defendant fulfills certain conditions, so there is no plea, no conviction, and no sentence.

Thankfully, there is a catch when the diversion agreement contemplates probationary conditions. We’ll come to that in due course.

Obfuscating Hunter’s Immunity Bath

The breadth of immunity Weiss was trying to give Hunter was outrageous. Any sentient judge would have questioned it. So Weiss tried to hide it in two ways.

First, he tucked it into the diversion agreement that he hoped the judge wouldn’t peruse, while omitting it from the plea agreement that the judge would have to look at (though, Weiss hoped, not too closely). But because he was omitting the all-important immunity clause from the plea agreement, Weiss had no choice but to omit the completeness clause, too. The only reason Hunter agreed to plead guilty, even to two trivial misdemeanors, was the sweeping immunity grant. If the plea agreement had included the standard completeness clause but left out the immunity grant, Hunter and his lawyers would never have signed it.

It was one thing to hope Noreika wouldn’t notice the plea agreement’s omission of an immunity term. But betting that she’d snooze through the lack of the completeness clause that the DOJ habitually puts at the end of every plea agreement was unrealistic — and if Weiss surmised that Noreika, like himself, was a standard Delaware “don’t you dare question the Bidens” type, then he hadn’t taken her measure.

Weiss’s second stratagem was to camouflage the indefensible breadth of the immunity grant: In exchange for a guilty plea to two puny misdemeanor tax charges with no jail time, he intended to shield Hunter from prosecution for all potential felonies from 2014 through 2019. In a plea deal, the government is supposed to state clearly the crimes it is forfeiting the authority to prosecute, but Weiss knew that if he spelled this out, there would be an earthquake on Capitol Hill, outcry from the public, and deep embarrassment for the White House and the Justice Department. So even though he hoped the judge would not make a fuss about his insertion of the immunity term in the diversion agreement, he knew the diversion agreement would have to be public. Ergo, he concocted a device to obfuscate the immunity terms.

That was “Exhibit A” of the diversion agreement. It is a narrative “statement of facts” describing Hunter’s professional pursuits and personal foibles from 2014 to 2019. It is supposed to take the place of a clear description of the immunized crimes; but of course, Hunter was not going to admit to serial felonies. Hence, it worked this way: Hunter and Weiss jointly adopted the four-page statement of facts; then Weiss — in the key paragraph 15 of the diversion agreement — gave Hunter immunity for any charges that might be “encompassed” in that recitation. That is, the Biden Justice Department didn’t come out and directly tell us what potential crimes prosecutors had immunized; it was instead left up to the reader to figure out what potential crimes could be teased out of the statement of facts.

Once they had slammed that past the judge, the plan was for Hunter to give a cloying statement about how relieved he and his family were to have this hiccup behind them — in fact, a podium was even set up right outside the courthouse in anticipation of this denouement. Concurrently, Hunter’s lawyers would crow that the diversion agreement, by its sweeping immunity term that expressly incorporates the statement of facts, ended the Biden case once and for all — might as well forget that molehill those crazy House Republicans are portraying as a mountain of Biden corruption, because the government could no longer prosecute Hunter. Finally, for their part, Weiss and the Biden Justice Department wouldn’t have said anything . . . but they wouldn’t have prosecuted Hunter for anything, either.

This legerdemain went poof because the judge asked about the immunity term in open court. Put prematurely on the spot, Hunter’s lawyers proclaimed that it covered everything — and they were right, that was the intention. Weiss, however, was too humiliated to admit this. Consequently, the Biden Justice Department lied, claiming that there was still an “ongoing investigation” and that Hunter could still be prosecuted — even though, if those things were true, it would have made no sense to give a principal subject a misdemeanor plea with a promise of no jail time in the middle of the “ongoing investigation.” Hunter’s lawyers became indignant, and understandably so. Yes, it’s an outrageous deal . . . but it’s the deal Weiss and the Biden Justice Department promised until they got caught.

There Is No Biden Corruption Investigation at the Biden Justice Department

But that barely scratches the surface of Weiss’s sabotage. The statement of facts that he adopted is Hunter’s version of events. This shows that (a) there is no real Justice Department Biden investigation, and (b) Weiss is trying to kill the case before it engulfs the president.

How do we know this? Because of the information thus far gathered by Senators Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R., Wis), as well as House committees led by Oversight chairman James Comer (R., Ky.). The energetic congressional efforts, contrary to the dormant Justice Department “probe,” are undergirded by bank records, Hunter’s laptop, and the testimony of both whistleblower IRS agents and Hunter’s partner Devon Archer. This mosaic shows that Hunter was the front man for a scheme in which foreign actors paid millions of dollars in bribes to purchase access to Joe Biden, and that the Bidens and their confederates tried to hide (a) the sources of those money transfers, (b) the fact that they were raking in millions, and (c) the fact that they were acting as foreign agents. While minor, the tax misdemeanors to which Hunter was trying to plead guilty were consistent with this scheme: The Bidens pretended this money came from legitimate business activity and then hid the proceeds by, among other things, not reporting the income and not paying the taxes due.

That is what the evidence shows. But what did Weiss do? He adopted a statement of facts in which Hunter asserts that the foreign income was legitimately earned through his purported work as a high-end lawyer and business consultant (i.e., no way it’s bribery, influence peddling, and foreign-agent work), and that he failed to pay his taxes because he was drug-addled (i.e., no way it’s money laundering and tax evasion).

The statement of facts adopted by Weiss completely undermines the essence of the Biden corruption scheme. If you were a prosecutor who was assigned to the Biden case, and you truly had an “ongoing investigation” into the Biden business activities, there is no way in a million years that you would adopt a defendant’s spin on the “facts” that contradicts the evidence amassed by your investigators. Indeed, there is no way, in the middle of your “ongoing investigation” of serious felonies, that you would gift one of the main subjects of the investigation with a plea deal involving two misdemeanor tax charges — a plea deal in which you promised to seek a no-jail sentence and which you structured so the defendant could credibly claim complete immunity from any crimes uncovered in your “ongoing investigation.”

In the end, Hunter’s lawyers are right and “special counsel” Weiss is wrong: Weiss had every intention of giving away the store. The way Weiss and the Biden Justice Department wrote the plea and diversion agreements, they are wholly independent — the collapse of the plea should have no effect on the validity of the diversion. And the way the diversion agreement is written, Hunter should have complete immunity from prosecution, notwithstanding the lack of even an admission of guilt to the misdemeanor tax charges.

Probation Office Shoots Down Weiss’s Inexplicable Diversion of a Gun Felony

Hunter and his lawyers are trying to convince Judge Noreika that the diversion agreement and the broad immunity it promises are still valid and enforceable. In the end, he is going to lose, but not because Weiss has suddenly grown a backbone. Hunter will lose because, once again, the court rode to the rescue. It wasn’t the judge this time; it was the Delaware federal court’s chief probation officer, Margaret M. Bray.

While the judge need not sign off on a diversion agreement, the probation office must approve it if the agreement includes probationary conditions, as the one between Weiss and Hunter’s lawyers did. This is because the probation office is responsible for monitoring a defendant’s compliance with such conditions. Routinely, the probation office signs off on diversion agreements. Weiss and Hunter’s lawyers must have figured this one would be rubber-stamped as well. But Chief Probation Officer Bray declined.

How come? It is not a subject Weiss wants to dwell on, but we should. There is no explanation on the record. Yet, we know that Justice Department guidelines instruct that a defendant is ineligible for diversion if he is “accused of an offense involving brandishing or use of a firearm or other deadly weapon.” Hunter is known to have obtained a gun in October 2018 by lying on a required government form about his illegal-drug use. There is video from the laptop showing him brandishing a gun a few days later in a depraved and potentially dangerous scene with a prostitute. Not long after that, because of his carelessness, the gun he purchased after lying on the federal form was lost across the street from a school. (It was later recovered.)

As if that weren’t bad enough, I believe the probation office realized Hunter had to have been handling more than one gun on his autumn 2018 drug binge — and it’s not clear all guns have been accounted for. The gun he purchased after lying on the form is a revolver (described in the diversion agreement as a Colt Cobra 38-special revolver); but the gun in the video from a few days later is not a revolver (it appears to be a Glock). Note, moreover, that the diversion agreement called for Hunter to forfeit “all firearms . . . including but not limited to” the revolver. Implicitly, Weiss was acknowledging that there could be multiple guns at issue. Naturally, the Biden Justice Department doesn’t want to broadcast that fact: President Biden is as demagogic as Democrats get in demonizing law-abiding gun-owners and Second Amendment rights; his son’s felony possession of a single gun — that his Justice Department tried to give Hunter a pass on — is humiliating enough.

Judge Noreika exposed the shameful plea agreement, so now the misdemeanor charges have been dismissed. Chief Probation Officer Bray refused to be party to the appalling diversion agreement, so it too is sure to be scrapped. The commentariat is fantasizing that, with Attorney General Garland having now branded him a “special counsel,” David Weiss will turn alpha-prosecutor. I wouldn’t count on that. Weiss remains a top Biden Justice Department official, and he has methodically undermined the Biden case for years. It’s a better bet that he’s now huddling again with counsel for the president’s son, struggling to come up with more plea-bargain cosplay they can try to sell as real law enforcement.

Meanwhile, the statute-of-limitations clock keeps on ticking.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
".Meanwhile, the statute-of-limitations clock keeps on ticking."

I thought the clock stopwatch goes on stop once an official investigation begins

I guess not.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
"While constitutional due process guarantees that every American is presumed innocent, it also dictates that no American can be charged with a crime and forced to stand trial unless there is probable cause that a crime has been committed"

this would not matter to a DC grand jury  :x since it involves *TRUMP!!!!*


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
WT: Peter Navarro
« Reply #1595 on: August 23, 2023, 06:22:37 AM »


U.S. v. Merrick Garland, Jack Smith, Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg

The indictment a grand jury should return for the persecution of former President Trump

By Peter Navarro

The Grand Jury in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming charges: The Defendants, Attorney General Merrick Garland, special prosecutor Jack Smith, Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate and agree with co-conspirators known and unknown to the Grand Jury.

Defendants engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to interfere with the 2024 presidential election. They attempted to impair or destroy the candidacy of Republican front-runner Donald Trump and thereby deprive Mr. Trump and his supporters of their rights under color of law.

Defendants used a three-pronged attack. The first was a full-frontal assault to wrongly convict Mr. Trump and his associates of numerous felonies. These convictions would preclude Mr. Trump from serving if he won the 2024 race and deny Mr. Trump the services of his associates.

In the event a conviction could not be secured, Defendants sought to damage Mr. Trump’s reputation beyond repair with knowingly false allegations. They believed that an onslaught of negative publicity would turn Mr. Trump from front-runner to also-ran.

Third, Defendants used their baseless and weaponized prosecutions to distract Mr. Trump and his associates from campaigning. Defendants also sought to divert Mr. Trump’s campaign resources, both money and staff, toward fighting his legal battles. These battles had to be fought in different jurisdictions hundreds or thousands of miles from one another and thereby drained tens of millions of dollars from Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign coffers.

To advance their conspiracy, Defendants shared clearly identifiable common strategies and tactics that illustrate the high degree of explicit collusion or tacit coordination that conspiratorially occurred between and among them.

Their manner and means include: Each Defendant relied on a novel legal theory far outside the boundaries of true justice and without any basis in settled law. For example, Defendant Willis relied on the federal RICO (Racketeering) Act rather than violations of state election laws while Defendant Bragg attempted to twist a misdemeanor of allegedly falsifying business records into a felonious federal campaign violation.

Each indictment was timed to the 2024 election cycle to maximize its possible negative impacts on voter perceptions of Mr. Trump. By rolling their indictments, arraignments, and proposed trial dates through the election cycle, Defendants also sought to substantially curb Mr. Trump’s ability to move freely about the country to campaign.

Each Defendant sought to adjudicate their case in Trump-unfriendly jurisdictions with high Democratic registration. Defendants believed this would lead to a higher probability that members of a grand jury and jury would first indict and then convict Mr. Trump and do so in rapid fashion, e.g., Defendant Bragg’s Manhattan, Defendant Smith’s Washington, D.C., or the “rocket docket” in Miami known for its speedy trials.

Each Defendant excessively charged Mr. Trump with multiple counts that collectively added up to over 700 years of prison time. The underlying tactic, wellknown in prosecutorial circles, was to throw everything at the wall and hope that something would stick.

Each Defendant falsely charged numerous Trump associates to pressure these prosecutorial victims to turn “state’s evidence.” This pressure included both the threat of prison time and the drain on family resources from paying significant legal bills.

Finally, each Defendant built his or her case around the rebuttal presumption that the 2020 presidential election was unmarred by fraud and irregularities. No reasonable person reviewing the forensic evidence in key battleground states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — or who simply watched the films “2000 Mules” or “Rigged” — can assert with 100% certainty that Mr. Trump did not have good reasons to believe the election was stolen from him and the American people.

The Defendants’ criminal enterprise enlisted numerous unindicted co-conspirators in the print and television media. These co-conspirators publicized leaks from the investigations and readily adopted the false narratives and malicious talking points disseminated to them directly by the bureaucracies controlled by the Defendants.

While the Defendants’ conspiracy ultimately backfi red by consolidating support for Mr. Trump and thereby paved the way for his return to the White House in 2025, Defendants did incalculable damage to the integrity of the American judicial and election systems.

Defendants did similar incalculable harm to economic and national security by diverting the American electorate’s attention away from critical issues, including the economic challenge of stagflation and the clear and present dangers that rogue nations such as China, North Korea and Iran now pose to this nation.

Are these Defendants guilty of any of these possible charges? Should these Defendants bear any economic or legal burdens for their actions? You the jury reading this column can render your own verdict by taking the poll at www.peternavarro.substack.com. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Peter Navarro served as former President Donald Trump’s manufacturing czar and chief China strategist. This column originally appeared at his Substack.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
Florida records case - Trump guilty
« Reply #1596 on: August 23, 2023, 06:39:48 AM »
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-vows-massive-tariffs-elected-184138555.html

O'Reilly states he is clearly guilty on this one the other three are bogus

Watching Dershowitz and Turley also hedge squirm and admit Trump's biggest problem of the four is clearly the Mar a Lago case

makes me think he has real problem here.

Dumb hard ass Trump would not simply return the damn documents - just has to give anyone who bothers him the middle finger

so now we will have to go through this mess for nothing .

And not I don't think he had dirt on Biden as reason for keeping the documents or he was covering something embarrassing.
I suspect it was just his being a plain hard ass.

This is so distracting .....


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
I love Mark
but I disagree with him and all the other pro Trumpers till death crowd at NewsMax
about Trump

Most Americans do NOT want Trump - what is it that Mark does not understand?

Every poll has shown this for yrs.

Why can't we have a candidate who can win over 50% ?

Going into the election praying the Democrat is worse than Trump is asking to get whipped .

Nikkei Haley was correct last night. 
Can anyone imagine having a candidate whom 2/3 of the nation do NOT want to vote for?