Author Topic: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War  (Read 14496 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #200 on: September 12, 2022, 03:08:41 PM »
Bannon is absolutely a grifter

should never be near a white house again
or should have been the first time............

I forgot about the Michelle Fields incident

FWIW I also remember Marc Levin was outraged the way Miss Fields was handled .

OTOH she herself tried to exploit the whole thing and wrote a book that failed miserably

We do not need stupid palace gossip
we do not need Bannon

  he is trouble ...... screw him as far as I am concerned .... no apologies from me

https://www.businessinsider.com/breitbart-editor-ben-shapirostephen-bannon-2016-8

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24511
    • View Profile
Re: can't read NR anymore
« Reply #201 on: September 12, 2022, 09:30:29 PM »
without subscription

You aren't missing anything.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16773
    • View Profile
Re: can't read NR anymore
« Reply #202 on: September 13, 2022, 03:05:28 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile
Nat Review and Steve Bannon - me -> 2 thumbs down
« Reply #203 on: September 13, 2022, 06:42:33 AM »
as for NR

I agree

they were never trumpers
to the extent they would spend more time criticizing him then they would the LEFT,
the real enemy.

but back to bannon
   he is NOT a hill I am going to die for .

who the heck is he anyway
never elected
I never read any evidence he helped Trump get elected.

as for VDH , I love the guy .

except I am not sure I would compare trump to Gary Cooper in High noon
 or the seven samuri ( magnificant 7) characters
 (never sat thru 'Shane')

 :-o


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24511
    • View Profile
Re: Nat Review and Steve Bannon - me -> 2 thumbs down
« Reply #204 on: September 13, 2022, 12:15:51 PM »
Lots of grifters on the right. Is Bannon one? I don't know, but after years of "Russia, Russia, Russia" and the polticization/weaponization of the criminal justice system, I trust nothing they claim about anyone.


as for NR

I agree

they were never trumpers
to the extent they would spend more time criticizing him then they would the LEFT,
the real enemy.

but back to bannon
   he is NOT a hill I am going to die for .

who the heck is he anyway
never elected
I never read any evidence he helped Trump get elected.

as for VDH , I love the guy .

except I am not sure I would compare trump to Gary Cooper in High noon
 or the seven samuri ( magnificant 7) characters
 (never sat thru 'Shane')

 :-o

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24511
    • View Profile
Keep this in mind
« Reply #205 on: September 13, 2022, 03:00:53 PM »
Ian Miles Cheong:

"While you’re talking about voting Democrats out of office, they’re talking about putting you in jail."



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
WT: Biden pressures FBI to tag 'extremists'
« Reply #208 on: September 15, 2022, 08:14:27 AM »
Biden puts pressure on FBI to tag ‘extremists’

Event to highlight domestic threats

BY KERRY PICKET AND JOSEPH CLARK THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Biden will convene a forum Thursday at the White House aimed at confronting what civil rights groups, local officials and academics say is an explosive rise in extremism and White supremacy that threatens the core of America’s democracy.

The “United We Stand” summit builds on the administration’s push to root out racially motivated domestic violent extremists. The threat sparked a sweeping strategy that included the creation of a specialized Justice Department unit to combat domestic terrorism. Mr. Biden is scheduled to deliver the keynote address to highlight the administration’s response to hate and “put forward a shared vision for a more united America,” officials said.

Current and former FBI agents tell The Washington Times that the perceived threat has become overblown under the Biden administration. They say bureau analysts and top officials are pressuring FBI agents to create domestic terrorist cases and tag people as White supremacists to meet internal metrics.

“The demand for White supremacy” coming from FBI headquarters “vastly outstrips the supply of White supremacy,” said one agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “We have more people assigned to investigate White supremacists than we can actually find.”

The agent said those driving bureau policies “have already determined that White supremacy is a problem” and set

agencywide policy to elevate racially motivated domestic extremism cases as priorities.

“We are sort of the lapdogs as the actual agents doing these sorts of investigations, trying to find a crime to fit otherwise First Amendment-protected activities,” he said. “If they have a Gadsden flag and they own guns and they are mean at school board meetings, that’s probably a domestic terrorist.”

The Gadsden flag is a historical American flag with a yellow field showing a timber rattlesnake and the words: “Don’t Tread on Me.” It is often used as a symbol of liberty.

The FBI denies targeting groups or people based on their espoused political views and says the bureau focuses only on those “who commit or intend to commit violence and criminal activity that constitutes a federal crime or poses a threat to national security.”

“The FBI aggressively investigates threats posed by domestic violent extremists,” an FBI spokesperson said. “We do not investigate ideology, and we do not investigate particular cases based on the political views of the individuals involved. The FBI will continue to pursue threats or acts of violence, regardless of the underlying motivation or sociopolitical goal.”

Others say the concern about the rise of extremism and White supremacist ideology is far from unfounded.

Nationwide hate crime data points to a concerning rise in racially motivated attacks in recent years, said Brian Levin, who founded the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, and has been appointed to California’s recently formed Commission on the State of Hate.

According to Mr. Levin’s preliminary analysis of hate crime statistics pulled from 52 U.S. cities, hate crimes rose 20% in 2021, with nine states breaking annual records. Last year marked an especially concerning rise in hate crime against Blacks, according to his analysis, though anti-Asian, anti-Jewish and anti-Hispanic hate crimes added to the spike.

Mr. Levin, an independent, said White supremacist ideology consistently motivates the most deadly hate-fueled attacks. He noted a concerning rise in online extremism among White supremacist groups. “We have these ticking time bombs walking around like Buffalo or Mother Emanuel church,” he said, referring to mass shootings where Blacks were targeted. “That’s something that we really have to have to address. White supremacy is absolutely something that we have to look at as not only a hate crime issue but a national security issue.”

Furthermore, Mr. Levin said that not all of those who perpetrate hate crimes motivated by racial animus are “dyed in the wool” extremists or that “the klan is operationally directing” all Whitesupremacy- inspired attacks.

Still, he said, it is important to consider the sometimes subtle biases that motivate the crimes.

The FBI agent’s claims of a crusade against an inflated White supremacist and domestic extremism threat echo complaints by conservative lawmakers who accuse the Biden administration of ignoring left-wing violence and leveraging fears of right-wing terrorism to target political opponents and stifle legitimate debate.

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said several whistleblowers have come forward with similar accusations that the FBI has pressured agents to open cases to fulfill the Biden administration’s crusade against homegrown terrorism.

“I think [it is] what’s ultimately driving his politics,” Mr. Jordan said. “If you own a gun, display the flag and voted for Trump, the president’s going to call you an extremist, and it appears the FBI is going to use the numbers to satisfy that narrative that the president laid out.”

White House officials have billed Thursday’s summit as a stand against “the corrosive effects of hate-fueled violence on our democracy and public safety.”

The lineup for the summit includes federal, state and local officials along with civil rights groups, business leaders, law enforcement officials and former members of violent hate groups who now work to prevent violence.

Those backing the White House summit cite a series of recent mass shootings motived by racial animus, including the targeted killing in May of Black shoppers at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store allegedly by a self-described White supremacist.

Mr. Biden, who has often said the violence surrounding the 2017 White nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, spurred his run for president in 2020, has made fighting extremism a priority for his administration.

The president signed into law measures to combat anti-Asian hate crimes and the nation’s first gun control bill in decades after back-to-back mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas.

As part of his efforts to stamp out hate crimes, Mr. Biden announced a sweeping strategy to deal with the threat of domestic terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security declared extremism a “national threat priority.” In January, the Justice Department established a specialized unit to combat domestic terrorism.

Critics say Mr. Biden’s efforts have done little to unite the country, and many Republicans warn that the country is becoming further divided under his administration.

Attorney General Merrick Garland piqued fears among conservatives of a burgeoning police state last year when he issued a memorandum directing federal law enforcement officials to strategize against the terrorist threat from parents protesting at local school board meetings.

The memo was a response to a National School Boards Association letter to Mr. Biden requesting federal assistance to stop threats from parents against public school officials. Conservatives said the move weaponized the Justice Department to target average Americans for activities protected under the First Amendment.

Republican distrust of federal law enforcement has grown further after the FBI raid of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, last month and the crackdown of Trump insiders accused of involvement in a plot to overturn the 2020 election.

Mr. Biden also has stoked conservatives’ fears with campaign rhetoric casting Republicans as anti-democratic extremists and labeling Mr. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” political agenda as “semi-fascism.”

In a nationwide survey by the Trafalgar Group and Convention of States Action in the days after Mr. Biden’s speech in which he framed the midterm elections as a battle for the “soul of our nation,” 56.8% of respondents said the speech was a “dangerous escalation in rhetoric designed to incite conflict among Americans.”

Just 35% of those polled viewed the rhetoric as “acceptable campaign messaging” in an election year.

Among third-party and independent voters, 62.4% viewed the speech as dangerous, compared with 31.2% who said it was acceptable campaign rhetoric.

Nonetheless, the White House has stood by the escalation in rhetoric, which has been echoed by groups on the left pushing for the president to take action in the face of what a consortium of civil rights leaders has deemed to be “America’s most precarious moment since the Jim Crow era.”

Civil rights leaders also cite a spike in racially motivated vandalism at places of worship, the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, and the ongoing push to overturn the 2020 election as evidence of a concerning rise in domestic extremism in addition to the nationwide spike in hate crimes.

“White supremacy is the greatest threat to the wellbeing of our nation,” said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “In order to dismantle it, we need a bold, coordinated response.”

“President Biden’s ‘United We Stand’ summit is a critical first step towards a Marshall Plan-style approach to galvanize the type of federal resources and civil society initiatives for which I and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law have been advocating,” he said.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #211 on: September 24, 2022, 10:50:40 AM »
but lawyers still being paid for their lawfare efforts

lawfare great business model




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile
another huge benefit if we win Senate is to stop Biden judge nominations
« Reply #215 on: November 06, 2022, 01:24:25 PM »
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3712764-mccarthy-says-hes-better-prepared-for-speakers-gavel-than-in-past/



if we can get to 54 we may also stymie Romney and few others
who may be willing to vote FOR Biden ACLU type judges

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #216 on: November 06, 2022, 02:09:25 PM »
"(W)e may also stymie Romney, Lindsay Graham, and a few others
who may be willing to vote FOR Biden ACLU type judges"


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile
Newt having a doubly bad day
« Reply #218 on: November 09, 2022, 01:34:59 PM »
Newt on TV repeatedly forecasting a  40 + congressional seat gain:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-orders-newt-gingrich-to-testify-in-georgia-2020-election-probe

me too as bitcoin crashing .....

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
ET: Special Counsel = Election interference
« Reply #220 on: November 27, 2022, 01:07:55 PM »
Appointment of Special Counsel Amounts to Election Interference and Sets Dangerous Precedent
Benjamin Weingarten
Benjamin Weingarten
 November 25, 2022


While Republicans kicked off the 2024 presidential race with the announcement that Donald Trump was running for president, in perhaps the ultimate sign of our ignominious times, Democrats, in effect, kicked off their half of the contest three days later by appointing a special counsel to escalate their political prosecution of him.

This is where “our democracy” stands today: with its purported defenders engaging in the singularly anti-democratic act of siccing a hyper-politicized law enforcement apparatus on a candidate for the highest elected office, on dubious grounds, thereby subverting the political process by which we decide who represents us.

At a minimum, no doubt to an approving President Joe Biden, his law enforcement arm is now engaged in what amounts to election interference against arguably the president’s top challenger—ironically probing in part then-President Trump’s alleged interference with the transfer of power in 2020, when Trump could make the case the Deep State did the same to him from the inception of Russiagate in 2016 onward.

Worse, with Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel, the prospect of the former president being charged and convicted of something, anything, is more real than at any time during the perpetual campaign to purge Trump from the body politic.

Our Ruling Class really does wish to “lock him up,” or at least hold that threat over the former president’s head for maximum political gain.

There are many layers to the surreal lawfare assault on Trump worth peeling back—all of which point to the fact that our core institutions are willing to burn themselves down in service of their own power and privilege.

For starters, we have the inherent Third World nature of the current president, by way of his attorney general, pursuing criminal charges against his predecessor and present challenger. This is an extension of the Third World, Soviet show-trial-style Jan. 6 committee preceding it. The law enforcement apparatus carrying out the investigations has time and again acted, Third World-like, as the Ruling Class’s sword and shield. Such Third Worldism in our politics—weaponizing the national security and law enforcement apparatus against Ruling Class foes—has now been normalized, and institutionalized.

Next, there are the beyond dubious grounds on which the DOJ’s legal pursuit is putatively based. No Justice Department has ever pursued such probes, on such grounds, concerning such debatable charges, under such circumstances as this one. The 2024 presidential election may hinge in large part on what case(s) the DOJ can make over a document dispute—as even federal law enforcement has acknowledged is at issue with the Mar-a-Lago materials—and the manner in which a president contested an election.

Setting aside for a minute the contempt with which the DOJ/FBI has treated Trump time and again, looked at on the merits, the agencies have punted far more clear-cut cases concerning the handling of documents by officials with far less authority than the commander-in-chief. To my knowledge, there is little if any guidance on what constitutes “unlawful interference” with the transfer of power, or election certification—meaning, at very best, the Justice Department is dealing in hypotheticals and unique matters of interpretation. In other words, the grounds for legal pursuit of Trump by his successor’s administration are shaky, and the cases to be made are novel, to put it mildly.

If federal prosecutors—starting with the attorney general—acted with even a modicum of discretion, they would have immediately dismissed even the thought of pursuing anything but open-and-shut cases, overwhelmingly supported by law and precedent, when it comes to prosecuting a former president and current candidate. Instead, by characteristically holding Trump to a different standard than any president to come before him, our preeminent law enforcement agencies are undermining the rule of law.

Another aspect of the story is Garland’s artful attempt to insulate himself from an inherently hyper-political prosecution that his DOJ initiated in the first place, and that he ultimately calls the final shots on anyway—and all while the president’s son, not to mention other family members, who monetized patriarch Joe’s office through dealings with our worst adversaries, face no special counsel. Talk about a double standard.

Then there’s Special Counsel Smith’s checkered record in spearheading past baseless pursuits of Republicans during his time as the head of the Obama Justice Department’s public integrity section. His office’s reckless prosecution of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell on bribery charges led to an embarrassing rebuke at the Supreme Court, which overturned the Republican’s conviction by a nine-to-nothing vote. The special counsel has also been implicated in the IRS’s targeting of conservative nonprofits during the Obama years.

And then, of course, there’s the myriad ways the prosecution can and will be exploited to hobble candidate Trump, cast a cloud over the GOP primary process, stymie Congressional Republicans likely to probe aspects of Jan. 6 and perhaps the DOJ and FBI themselves, and sideline those members involved in contesting the 2020 presidential election—all while distracting from the Biden administration’s misdeeds.

Lastly, there’s the precedent this all sets.

The legal persecution of Trump—an insurance policy of sorts should the political persecution of him and his supporters fail—is beyond chilling.

Those who loathe Trump, his policy, and his people, have proven they are willing to eviscerate the American system in the name of defending it from traitors, authoritarians, and insurrectionists.

Their projection is reaching its apex.

Should it persist, we will be an unrecognizable country.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #221 on: November 27, 2022, 01:34:58 PM »
I thought the appointment of a special counsel. needed approval from the Senate

AG can appoint (of course with President approval alone?)

that has to change

can SCOTUS weigh in on this? are there grounds to do so?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
WSJ: SCOTUS gets a fraud test
« Reply #222 on: November 27, 2022, 01:52:10 PM »
Not to my knowledge:

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

The Supreme Court Gets a Fraud Test
The Justices hear two major cases on prosecutorial overreach.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
Nov. 25, 2022 6:36 pm ET


George Washington Plunkitt’s quip about the difference between honest and dishonest graft comes to mind in two important public corruption cases the Supreme Court will hear on Monday. Defendants are asking the Court to throw out their convictions for sleazy conduct that they argue isn’t illegal under U.S. fraud laws.

The first case (Percoco v. U.S.) involves the ill-defined honest-services fraud statute. Joseph Percoco, a former state official who was at the time serving as campaign manager for former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, was paid $35,000 by a real-estate developer, allegedly to help obtain government approval for a project that didn’t have a labor peace agreement with local unions.

Prosecutors say Mr. Percoco was “functionally a public official” because he commanded clout with state agencies and therefore committed honest-services fraud by allegedly accepting a bribe. Congress defined a “scheme or artifice to defraud” to include “a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”

But as Justice Antonin Scalia noted, the law’s ambiguity has given rise to “chaos” in lower courts since nowhere is the “right of honest services” defined. The Court’s Skilling (2010) precedent limited criminal liability under the statute to kickback and bribery schemes, but three Justices also believed the law’s vagueness made it unconstitutional.

Lower courts have held that public officials owe a “right of honest services” to their constituents, but the High Court has never ruled that private individuals owe a fiduciary duty to the public. Prosecutors say Mr. Percoco owed the public such a duty because his “grip on [state] power never changed, diminished, or dissipated as he managed the campaign.”

Was Mr. Percoco paid to leverage his political clout? Of course. His simultaneous employment as Mr. Cuomo’s campaign manager and a business consultant is certainly sketchy. But the government’s theory in this case could be used to prosecute any powerful lobbyist, including former lawmakers who don’t act in the putative public interest.

This would present First Amendment concerns since citizens have the right to petition their government. It would also impair due process for private citizens who have no way of knowing if they are covered by the honest-services law. The Court tried to cabin criminal liability under the law in Skilling, but now prosecutors want to expand it again.


Monday’s second case (Ciminelli v. U.S.) also involves prosecutorial overreach against a Cuomo crony. The government charged contractor Louis Ciminelli, a Cuomo campaign contributor, with conspiracy to commit fraud by allegedly helping rig the procurement for a state-subsidized solar panel plant in Buffalo.

A member of a nonprofit overseeing the project drafted “requests for proposals” (RFP) to favor Mr. Ciminelli’s construction firm. There was no evidence Mr. Ciminelli directed the RFP’s terms, nor that the state or nonprofit suffered economic harm or loss of property as a result of Mr. Ciminelli’s firm being chosen.

Yet according to the government, Mr. Ciminelli defrauded the nonprofit of its “right to control its assets” by exposing it to the risk of economic harm through false representations about the fairness and competitiveness of the bidding process. If you’re struggling to understand the government’s convoluted theory, you’re not alone.

Prosecutors in recent years have increasingly resorted to this vague “right to control” theory to charge individuals they can’t prove defrauded anyone of actual property. This theory allows prosecutors to sidestep the traditional requirements of fraud, which are evidence of guilty intent, economic harm and deprivation of property.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in this case and others has ruled defendants can be prosecuted for fraud under this “right to control” theory if they withhold or misrepresent information that could affect an economic decision even if no one was harmed as a result. This transforms ordinary contract disputes and civil torts into federal crimes.

Businesses could be prosecuted if the government decides they withheld economically valuable information in transactions regardless of whether their lapse was intentional or harmed another party. Workers could be charged with fraud for not telling a prospective employer the reason they were laid off from their last job.

***
There’s no limiting principle on the government’s prosecutorial power under its theories of fraud in Monday’s two cases. The Court has repeatedly ruled that mere deception and unethical behavior don’t constitute fraud under existing U.S. law. Congress and states can pass laws to prevent political conflicts of interest from affecting government decisions. But prosecutors can’t rewrite the law on their own to charge individuals merely for profiting from their political connections.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile
Not clear where "taxpayer money" comes in
« Reply #224 on: January 30, 2023, 01:40:26 PM »