Author Topic: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War  (Read 29676 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #350 on: February 09, 2024, 07:30:58 AM »
Stay tuned.   What he put there is devastating for Biden.  True 25th Amendment material!

Too non compus mentis to prosecute, but fit to be the leader of the free world?  This could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Right. "Too non compus mentis to prosecute, but fit to be the leader of the free world?"

Unbelievable.

The second aspect of course is the parallel to the Trump charges for the same crime. 

How do they escape either one of these points.  The man is not competent to stand trial or even remember what he did but we are going ahead with the prosecution of his opponent - right in the middle of an election year.

It's too far fetched to sell if it was fiction.

5 takeaways:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2846710/five-takeaways-from-the-biden-classified-document-report/
Fudged timeframe.  They only discovered it in 2022 but knew about it in 2017.
Destruction of evidence.  Part of the tape missing. Wasn't Biden there for Watergate?
Drip, drip, drip.  They came forward ever so slowly with the evidence, except the destroyed evidence.
"Hamptons Hijinks"  Biden lost or mishandled classified docs going back 30 years and in particular in the Hamptons in 2010.
Intent Inquiries and Memory Problems. 
“Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023,” Hur wrote in the report.

Intent continued:  “[Biden] always believed history would prove him right,” Hur wrote of Biden’s views about the issue. “He retained materials documenting his opposition to the troop surge, including a classified handwritten memo he sent President Obama over the 2009 Thanksgiving holiday, and related marked classified documents.”

Biden’s desire to write a memoir also fueled his decision to hold onto sensitive notes, Hur said.

“According to a staffer involved in the project, Mr. Biden wanted to take copies of the notecards ‘so that he didn’t have to go to [the National Archives] every day to help write this book,’” the report said.

[Doug]  Isn't that a perfect parallel with Trump?  Both go to jail or both don't.  How is it justice any other way?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #351 on: February 09, 2024, 07:35:06 AM »
One shyster after another Tobin, Weissman, Raskin et al

doing a bent over backwards limbo dance to swindle us into thinking what Trump did was "far worse"
then Biden

the latter cooperated while the former obstructed justice by not returning docs to the NA.

blah blah blah


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Biden, from the Hur report
« Reply #352 on: February 09, 2024, 08:06:33 AM »
From the report:  [This is not a gaffe on stage.  This is an interview with a special prosecutor where he is the target.]

“He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘if it was 2013 — when did I stop being Vice President?’), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘in 2009, am I still Vice President?’).”

And: “He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died.”

He presents as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

https://nypost.com/2024/02/08/opinion/special-prosecutors-report-proves-joe-biden-is-unfit-to-remain-president/
----------------------------------------------------
[Doug]  What other cognitive functions of his are "poor"?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #353 on: February 09, 2024, 06:31:04 PM »
Could it be as simple as Biden/Hur laid it on heavy to justify failure to indict even though all the elements of the crime are present in abundance and weren't bright enough to forsee the cognitive dissonance that doing so would trigger?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
motive
« Reply #354 on: February 10, 2024, 05:31:18 AM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Hur

perhaps he was being political (Republican)
OTOH I suspect he was simply telling the truth.
Biden would look  sympathetic and relatable.

What he was supposed to ignore the obvious and be complicit in deceiving us like the rest of the Democrats ?
Aren't Biden's answers ("I can't remember") supposed to be part of the report.

Finally another Harvard grad who is on our side like DeSantis, Cruz, Dershowitz (lately)  :-D









DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Politics by Lawfare, Jack Smith is in a great big hurry and can't say why
« Reply #355 on: February 16, 2024, 10:10:40 AM »
Prosecutor Jack Smith is in a great big hurry and can't say why.

Biden Department of Justice

9-85.500 Actions that May Have an Impact on an Election
Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See § 9-27.260. Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an issue under this provision requires consultation with the Public Integrity Section, and such action shall not be taken if the Public Integrity Section advises that further consultation is required with the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-85000-protection-government-integrity#9-85.500


Weird, there must be some other reason he's in a hurry, he's late for a ballgame or something?  Maybe he's got a case bigger than taking down the top candidate for President of the United States coming that up he needs to clear the schedule for.

He wasn't in a hurry the first three years since the so-called felonies.

The wheels of justice turn ever so slowly.   Except when it might "[affect an election] or [give] advantage or disadvantage to [a] candidate or political party."

Oops, the law says he can't hurry for that reason.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2024, 10:19:03 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Politics by Lawfare, Trump's Judge:
« Reply #356 on: February 18, 2024, 07:53:52 AM »
Venial sin = forgivable, pardonable    - Merriam Webster

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4473974-obscene-award-against-trump-is-testing-the-new-york-legal-systems-integrity/

Jonathon Turley:

In laying the foundation for his sweeping decision against former President Donald Trump, Judge Arthur Engoron observed that “this is a venial sin, not a mortal sin.” Yet, at $355 million, one would think that Engoron had found Trump to be the source of Original Sin.

That makes the damages against Trump greater than the gross national product of some countries, including Micronesia. Yet the court admitted that not a single dollar was lost by the banks from these dealings. Indeed, witnesses testified that they wanted to do more business with Trump.  ... 

... you do not have to feel sorry or even sympathetic for Trump to see this award as obscene.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2024, 07:57:36 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
WSJ on the NY case
« Reply #357 on: February 19, 2024, 09:37:10 AM »

Trump’s $355 Million Civil Fraud Verdict
The judge found he inflated his assets, but this penalty is unreal.
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 16, 2024 6:51 pm ET

Donald Trump and his business were found liable Friday of inflating asset values in paperwork to lenders, but given that nobody lost money, this punishment smacks of political overkill. In a 92-page ruling, New York Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him to pay $355 million, while also banning him from being an officer for any New York corporation for three years.


The judge had previously found that Mr. Trump fudged numbers submitted on Statements of Financial Condition (SFCs), most egregiously by claiming that his 11,000-square-foot triplex in Trump Tower was actually 30,000 square feet. Friday’s ruling, putting a price tag on that conduct, includes pages of summarized testimony from business partners.

Donald Bender, an accountant at Mazars who helped draw up the documents, said he discovered later, after being interviewed by investigators, “that the Trump Organization had withheld records, such as appraisals, that Mazars had requested,” in the judge’s telling. “Bender made clear that Mazars would not have issued the SFCs if it had known.”

Nicholas Haigh, formerly a managing director of Deutsche Bank’s Private Wealth Management Division, signed off on loans to the Trump Organization. “Haigh relied on Donald Trump’s 2011 SFC and assumed that the representations of value of the assets and liabilities were ‘broadly accurate,’” the judge says.

Mr. Haigh affirmed that Mr. Trump’s “personal guarantee” was “the reason for favorable pricing on the loan.” Deutsche loans included covenants requiring Mr. Trump “to maintain a minimum net worth of $2.5 billion, excluding any value related to his brand.”

Perhaps this explains some of the obsession by the mogul-turned-President with puffing up his valuations over the decades. It’s true that Mr. Trump was interacting with sophisticated financial counterparties. But not for the first time, Mr. Trump’s casual relationship to the truth has come back to bite him.

Yet this remedy is like using a Hellfire missile to annihilate a shoplifter. Deutsche Bank made money on the loans, and its valuation teams gave a “haircut” to the numbers provided by Mr. Trump. There was no real financial victim.

More troubling is that this case was brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat who campaigned for office promising to find Mr. Trump guilty of something. This is choosing a target and then hunting for something to charge him with, which is an abuse of the law. Mr. Trump isn’t guaranteed a jury trial here, the judge says, because of the kind of case it is. But that’s another reason voters are unlikely to hold this judgment against Mr. Trump as he campaigns for the White House.

Mr. Trump denounced the verdict and says he’ll appeal. Meantime, this example of targeted civil prosecution ought to worry fair-minded people regardless of political bent. CEOs might wonder about doing business in a jurisdiction where elected politicians use the law to smash companies this way.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 09:40:41 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
WSJ: Jenkins: Show Trial
« Reply #358 on: February 19, 2024, 09:41:47 AM »
second post

Fani Willis Knows When a Trial Is a ‘Show Trial’
Credit Trump’s Georgia prosecutor with realizing no one will be hanging on fine points of the law.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Feb. 16, 2024 4:35 pm ET

If the worst allegations are true, credit Fani Willis at least with understanding in her own mind what her case, and all the cases against Donald Trump, are really about.

In the worst interpretation, the Fulton Country, Ga., district attorney hired her boyfriend, a municipal court judge, as co-prosecutor against Mr. Trump despite his lack of relevant expertise in Georgia election or RICO law because she was cutting an ally in on a big-time case, a lucrative hustle, a chance for national fame. If so, it’s a useful light on the Trump prosecutions generally.

They aren’t about the facts and law, at least until they reach the appellate level, and maybe not then. They are battles of jury nullification (if I can stretch a point to include 150 million voters in the jury): “It doesn’t matter what the law says, Trump is bad” vs. “It doesn’t matter what the law says, Trump’s enemies are bad.”

Trump opponents cloak themselves in sanctimony, whereas Mr. Trump portrays himself as a gamester outsmarting less competent, more self-deluding gamesters. That’s why he keeps coming out ahead in such fights. Careful onlookers will often find little to choose ethically between him and his enemies.

To me, the most interesting case is the most legally sound, the documents-related case, though that’s not why it’s interesting. It gets to the unspoken issue.

Remember the lead balloon in a CNN story in December, soon followed by stories in the New York Times and elsewhere? An “intelligence binder” had gone missing in the last hours of the Trump administration. Except it wasn’t information Mr. Trump had squirreled away for private use, it was info he had declassified to distribute to the press. His staff ran off multiple copies of the binder while waiting for last-minute redactions from the intelligence agencies that never came before his term expired.

This week, in overly breathless reporting, independent journalists Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag and Matt Taibbi suggest that the binder, among other things, showed that the intelligence agencies never really believed the Putin government craved a Trump victory but the opposite, preferring the known quantity of Hillary Clinton. Duh. In desultory fashion, the spooks went prospecting anyway for untoward ties between Trumpies and Moscow, and elicited overseas intelligence agencies to do so, which also strikes me as old news and not automatically nefarious.

The interesting and untold story begins when the FBI stopped caring about the truth and began relying on fabricated evidence, from a motive only acquired on Election Day, when Hillary Clinton lost most probably because of a ham-handed and improper intervention by the FBI that supplied Mr. Trump his minuscule win in the Electoral College.

Now the FBI and its intelligence confreres needed to change the subject quickly. If the judge in the documents case will allow it, Mr. Trump intends to make part of his defense the actions of our intelligence agencies to portray him as a Russian catspaw. In effect, he will invite a jury and the larger public to nullify the law on intelligence handling because he was fighting for his political life against a government “conspiracy”—I use quotes only because conspiracy means illegal cooperation and it isn’t clear much or anything was illegal about the collusion hoax.

Hoax it was, though, even if the fact goes politely ignored or played down because of the news media’s complicity. The FBI knowingly presented fabricated evidence to a surveillance court. An FBI official deliberately falsified details of Carter Page’s relationship with the CIA. The FBI put the chief Steele dossier fabricator on its own payroll for almost four years, becoming his family’s major source of income, which he would jeopardize if he breathed the truth about his Steele fabrications to the press.

Mr. Trump, as any American, is free to believe anything he wants without evidence, including about the 2020 election, the focus in Ms. Willis’s case as well as one of the federal cases. The great four-ring circus of jury nullification, including the Georgia case, the Manhattan case and two federal cases, won’t change that.

Where all the convoluted Trump matters will likely be settled is in an election, by voters deciding whether Mr. Trump is more sinning than his enemies, or vice versa.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #359 on: February 19, 2024, 10:00:57 AM »
" Mr. Trump, as any American, is free to believe anything he wants without evidence, including about the 2020 election, the focus in Ms. Willis’s case as well as one of the federal cases. The great four-ring circus of jury nullification, including the Georgia case, the Manhattan case and two federal cases, won’t change that."

Meanwhile CCP is working 24/7 to attack the US in every imaginal way.

Circus - not a funny or pleasurable one but a of the nature of a frightening black comedy.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Lawfare backfires in Biden
« Reply #360 on: February 20, 2024, 08:51:07 AM »
For the record, it was Attorney General Merrick Garland who appointed Special Counsel Hur and it was Garland who made the Special Counsel's report public.  Hur recommended not prosecuting Biden for arguably the same crime Trump is being prosecuted for. But his inclusion of the elderly man with the poor memory has done the most damage yet to his reelection chances.

Along the line that nothing happens by accident, the powers behind the curtain have been pressing Biden to step down from the 2024 race for quite some time, starting with an Axelrod comment and an Obama comment.  And now this.

https://amac.us/newsline/society/the-weaponization-of-special-counsels-boomerangs-on-democrats/

All but Jill have more loyalty to the machine than to the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
A Modern Day Bill of Attainder
« Reply #361 on: Today at 09:45:31 AM »
The process is (part of) the punishment:

The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy
President Trump's Kafkaesque Civil Trial in New York State
A Stalinist nightmare in New York State

STEVEN CALABRESI | 2.18.2024 3:10 PM
Donald Trump has been ordered to pay a $355 million fine and has been barred from doing business in New York State for three years.  Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay essentially all of his cash reserves of $400 million, which fine if upheld would force Trump to sell some of his real estate holdings to raise cash to live on.  Once interest is added on the total fine will rise to $450 million.  This is all on top of an $83.3 million fine Trump must pay for allegedly defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll.  The fines in total could deprive Trump of between 11% and 13% of his wealth.  Trump's adult sons Donald Jr. and Eric have also been fined, and they are barred from doing business in New York State for two years.  Ivanka or Melania Trump could legally run the Trump businesses for the next two years, but Judge Engoron appointed retired U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones to continue in her role as an "independent monitor" of the Trump business empire but expanded her authority to review financial disclosures before they are submitted to third parties.  Judge Jones can hire an independent director of compliance, and she has the authority to compel Trump to sell some or even all of his businesses down the road.  This is all punishment for Trump allegedly committing fraud by falsely in inflating and deflating the value of his real estate assets to pay lower state taxes and to receive more favorable loans from banks.

The New York State laws used to go after Trump have NEVER  been used in this way, historically, and while Trump may owe some back state taxes, if Judge Engoron is right, not a single bank claimed that it had been defrauded by Trump in the loans it had made to him.  This is truly a victimless crime.

Bankers took the stand at Trump's civil trial testifying that they would have gladly made loans to Donald Trump given his extraordinary success as a businessman.  It must also be noted that the banks that made loans to Trump did not take his assessment of the net worth of his assets at face value but made their own independent assessments of the value of Trump's assets.  This is apparently standard practice in the New York State real estate market where borrowers often overstate the value of their assets.

The bottom line is that a never before used New York State penalty has been twisted into a tool for a grossly excessive fine and more seriously the completely inappropriate appointment of Judge Jones as an "independent monitor" who can micromanage the Trump business, which she is not competent to do, and to even order the dissolution of the Trump Business in New York State.  This outcome was pursued by Letitia James, a politically ambition Democrat, who is the Attorney General of New York State, and who hopes to win a future Democratic primary for Governor of or Senator from New York State.

Ms. James and Judge Engeron have essentially turned a vaguely worded New York State law into a modern day Bill of Attainder targeted at Donald Trump both for political gain and because they despise his political views and desperately want to call his truthfulness into question as he runs for President of the United States inn 2024.  In doing this, the have violated Trump's First Amendment right to freedom of speech and of the press; his Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law; his Fifth Amendment right not to have property taken away from him except for a pubic use with just compensation being paid; his Eighth Amendment right not to be made to pay an excessive fine; his Article IV, Section 2 right as a citizen of Florida to do make and enforce contracts in New York on the same terms as are other New Yorkers; and his Fourteenth Amendment right to be free to pursue an occupation without unnecessary and burdensome regulation.

The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr.  If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions.   National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States.  This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/18/president-trumps-kafkaesque-civil-trial-in-new-york-state/?fbclid=IwAR3NfJl_v0u_277FaOC5vO9u9s16jYGdUqqC9iNCSkHW0eYzZlObsyZv9gE