Author Topic: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War  (Read 61925 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • 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: 18943
    • 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: 18652
    • 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: 70502
    • 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: 18943
    • 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: 18652
    • 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: 18652
    • 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: 70502
    • 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: 70502
    • 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: 18943
    • 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: 18652
    • 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: 2498
    • View Profile
A Modern Day Bill of Attainder
« Reply #361 on: February 21, 2024, 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

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #362 on: February 21, 2024, 03:48:17 PM »
Yup.

BTW today VDH (IIRC) made the point that the law Jean Carrol used was a bill of attainder i.e. it lifted the statute of limitations for one year so that she could sue.

Trump was very strong last night on Ingraham and made telling use of the Eighth Amendment- a point which this article misses.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
The Adult Survivors Act
« Reply #363 on: February 24, 2024, 02:42:01 AM »
The temporary law passed in NY for the sole purpose of allowing Carroll to bring civil charges against Trump:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_Survivors_Act

So the state's Democrat Party passed a law for the sole purpose to get their political opponent.

On the day the law took effect, writer E. Jean Carroll filed a suit against businessman and politician Donald Trump, the U.S. president, for defamation and battery.[12] On May 9, 2023, a jury in Manhattan federal court found that Trump defamed and sexually abused Carroll, ordering Trump to pay her $5 million in damages.[13]

Others also used the temporary one yr window to sue for alleged assaults but clearly this was designed for Trump.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Trump kicked off Illinois ballot
« Reply #364 on: February 29, 2024, 05:09:42 AM »
https://www.the-sun.com/news/10531948/illinois-judge-rules-donald-trump-removal-primary-ballot/

 :roll:

OTOH -

Ah the grim faces last night on CNN and MSNBC when realized the trial will NOT be before election.....

I saw at least one left wing guy on MSNBC calling to pack the Court.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
WSJ: SCOTUS right to take Trump's immunity claim
« Reply #365 on: February 29, 2024, 05:10:12 PM »

Why the Supreme Court Had to Hear Trump’s Case
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling was so sweeping that it posed a danger to our constitutional democracy.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley
Feb. 29, 2024 4:43 pm ET




A court room sketch of Donald Trump’s lawyer speaking at an appeals hearing on Mr. Trump’s immunity claim in the D.C. Circuit court in Washington, Jan. 9. PHOTO: BILL HENNESSY/REUTERS
Many observers thought the Supreme Court would decline to consider Donald Trump’s claim that presidential immunity shields him from prosecution for his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021. But on Wednesday the justices announced that they will hear the former president’s case in April. Mr. Trump could eventually face a trial on those charges, but the justices had little choice but to take up this question because the lower court’s ruling was so sweeping and dangerous.

Mr. Trump claims that his allegedly criminal actions were “official acts” taken as president. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that it didn’t matter if they were—that no president is entitled to immunity from “generally applicable criminal laws.” That decision violates the separation of powers, threatens the independence and vigor of the presidency, and is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.

The justices are unlikely to decide whether Mr. Trump’s actions were in fact “official acts.” Instead, they will consider the key legal question, “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

That’s a novel question, but in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the high court held that a president enjoys absolute immunity from civil suits predicated on his “official acts,” even if they fall foul of “federal laws of general applicability.” Justice Lewis Powell wrote that such immunity is a “functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.” Such lawsuits “could distract a President from his public duties, to the detriment of not only the President and his office but also the Nation that the Presidency was designed to serve.”

Mr. Trump maintains that he believed the 2020 presidential election was riddled with fraud and that his conduct on Jan. 6 was fully consistent with his constitutional obligations to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Whatever the merits of that claim, it raises weighty questions of law and fact that the D.C. Circuit was wrong to brush aside—most centrally, that the president’s power is granted by the Constitution, which, as the supreme law of the land, overrides ordinary, “generally applicable” statutes.

The D.C. Circuit decision opened the door to all manner of constitutional crises. A former president could be prosecuted for ordering a military attack on an American affiliated with a foreign terrorist organization, even though such an order is clearly within his authority as commander in chief. Aggressive prosecutors motivated by ideology or partisanship could use capaciously worded criminal statutes—including those regarding mail or wire fraud, racketeering, false statements and misrepresentations—to challenge almost any presidential action, including those related to national security activities.

As with civil suits, it isn’t enough to say that the former president would have the opportunity to mount a defense in court. The mere possibility of personal prosecution for official actions would chill future presidential decisions. The D.C. Circuit casually disregards this danger, asserting simply that the “public interest” in prosecuting crimes is weightier than the risk of chilling impartial and fearless presidential action. It asserts that a president wouldn’t be “unduly cowed” by the prospect of criminal liability, “any more than a juror” or “executive aide” would be. That analogy is inapt because the president’s responsibilities are much weightier than those of jurors or aides. He alone is the singular head of a constitutional branch of government. As the justices recognized in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the “greatest public interest” isn’t in enforcing ordinary statutes against the president. Immunity is necessary to ensure he has “the maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with the duties of his office.”

The D.C. Circuit dismissed as “slight” the risk that former presidents will be politically targeted because prosecutors “have ethical obligations not to initiate unfounded prosecutions” and there are “additional safeguards in place,” including the requirement of seeking an indictment from a grand jury. These arguments border on frivolous. Not all prosecutors are ethical, and even those who are may be overzealous. Many cases have featured prosecutorial misconduct or abuse. And the justices have surely heard the saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Lawyers in civil cases are also bound by ethical obligations, but that didn’t vitiate the case for presidential immunity in 1982.

Jack Smith, the special counsel in the Trump cases, has asserted that federal prosecutors make decisions without regard to politics—but his conduct in this case belies that claim. His chief argument against Mr. Trump’s petition for a stay of the D.C. Circuit’s decision denying his immunity was that such a delay would cause “serious harm to the government—and to the public” because the case “presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy.” Many Supreme Court cases raise such questions, and Mr. Smith avoids saying what distinguishes this one. The obvious answer is the election timetable.

Mr. Smith’s demand for fast-tracking the Supreme Court’s consideration thus contradicts the D.C. Circuit’s suppositions about prosecutorial ethical probity. Trying Mr. Trump, the all-but-certain Republican nominee for president, before the election is inconsistent with Section 9-27.260 of the Justice Department’s Justice Manual, which makes clear that prosecutors “may never make a decision regarding . . . prosecution or select the timing [thereof] . . . for the purpose or affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

The question of presidential immunity is an important one for our constitutional democracy of separated government powers, and the D.C. Circuit made a grievous error in disposing of it so casually. The justices were right to halt the proceedings until they can give the issue the careful consideration it deserves.

Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2024, 07:54:30 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2498
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #366 on: March 01, 2024, 09:27:15 AM »
Lawfare practiced in DC just took a hit:

The D.C. Bar’s case against Jeff Clark is part of a widespread and well-funded effort by Democrats to make it illegal to be a Republican lawyer.

JORDAN BOYD

@JORDANBOYDTX

Trump-era Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark won a big victory against Democrat lawfare on Monday when the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled he did not have to comply with a subpoena issued by the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

The appeals court denied the D.C. Bar’s attempt to enforce its subpoena against Clark because it “infringes on Mr. Clark’s Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself.” The court did not release a full opinion but promised to do so in the future.

The victory for Clark serves as a shocking blow to Democrats, who have tried to disbar more than 100 attorneys who agreed to work on election integrity cases following the 2020 presidential election. They’ve expanded that lawfare to attorneys across the nation who defend conservatives, including half of Republican attorneys general.

The D.C. Bar’s Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton P. Fox III initially charged the former head of the Department of Justice’s environment division in July 2022 with “attempted dishonesty” and “attempted serious interference with the administration of justice.”

Fox tried to subpoena Clark in 2021, shortly after the sham January 6 Committee failed to, but that demand was rendered effectively moot once he filed charges. Shortly after he announced the charges against Clark, Fox issued another subpoena in October 2022 demanding access to the former Trump official’s documents.

Among the requested materials was information about his draft letter to Georgia officials noting the DOJ “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the [2020] election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.” Clark is one of the 19 “co-conspirator” targets in Democrats’ wide-ranging election indictment in Fulton County.

Clark once again resisted the Fox subpoena because it would violate his executive, law enforcement, deliberative process, and attorney-client privileges, as well as deprive him of his Fifth Amendment rights.

In mid-2023, the D.C. Bar began pushing for court-ordered enforcement of the subpoena, but it wasn’t until December that the D.C. Court of Appeals demanded Clark’s compliance. Clark quickly filed a motion to reconsider and requested a hearing. During oral arguments to the three-judge panel on Friday, Clark’s legal team argued the D.C. Bar’s demands would violate Clark’s Fifth Amendment rights. The court agreed.

Clark’s legal team previously established that the D.C. Bar “has attempted to exercise disciplinary authority over a high-ranking, Senate-confirmed federal government official for actions taken in the course of his duty.”

The D.C. Bar’s case against Clark is part of a widespread and well-funded effort by Democrats to make it illegal to be a Republican lawyer. Several Trump-affiliated lawyers, including John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, have faced punishment for their roles in election cases. That is why Clark’s victory is so significant.

Clark will head to trial on March 26.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/26/in-big-victory-against-lawfare-dc-court-of-appeals-smacks-down-jeff-clark-subpoena/?fbclid=IwAR3J8pF1lK7s3TCs7Z9cwq28oJR6tKrlqb1--V7T0s4YIcS4RXA7fBsGWTQ

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2498
    • View Profile
Cutting a Road Through the Law to get the Devil
« Reply #367 on: March 01, 2024, 04:17:07 PM »
2nd post. Good overview and excoriation of NYC’s efforts to bankrupt Trump. Makes great use of a Thomas Moore metaphor:

https://johnalucas6.substack.com/p/cutting-down-the-law-to-get-at-the


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2498
    • View Profile
Perhaps Dems Should Nominate a Sentient Candidate Instead
« Reply #369 on: March 04, 2024, 05:09:23 AM »
Clarice Feldman presents a fine overview of cascades that will ensue should the SCOTUS and other courts find for Trump, suggesting perhaps Dems should nominate someone able to chew gum and walk:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/03/checkmating_doj_and_jack_smith.html

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Judge needs 2 more weeks to decide Fanni Willis
« Reply #370 on: March 04, 2024, 06:20:51 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/georgia-judge-needs-more-time-to-decide-fate-of-trump-prosecutor-fani-willis/ar-BB1jc39f

 :roll:

some pundits think she is out and evidence of lying to the Court is obvious and she will be ousted.
some pundits think she is in and there the case against her has not been made

American Spectator author concludes she is home free as the Judge has an election coming up in Democrat stronghold Fulton County in ~ 60 days :

https://spectator.org/why-ga-judge-wont-disqualify-fani-willis/


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2498
    • View Profile
Hoover Institute on NY's Lawfare
« Reply #373 on: March 06, 2024, 11:29:19 AM »



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
London Judge orders Trump to pay legal fees
« Reply #376 on: March 07, 2024, 05:34:34 AM »
in his libel suit against Christopher Steele's company for the dossier

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-forced-to-pay-legal-fees-for-company-he-sued-over-russia-sex-party-allegations/ar-BB1junSi?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=2d032fa9634440dbafb8572b05306e1a&ei=12

In a ruling last month, Mrs Justice Steyn threw out Mr Trump’s case, finding his compensation claim was “bound to fail”.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
J6 in Spades
« Reply #377 on: March 07, 2024, 07:54:20 AM »
So, the theory here is if Trump wins, the House and the Senate will pass a bill that Biden will pass?  How will that work out?

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

(1) DEMOCRAT LAWMAKERS MOVE ON TRUMP DISQUALIFICATION: Reps. Debbie Wasserman-Schulz (D-FL) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said they are working on a bill to identify and disqualify federal officials for “insurrection” after the Supreme Court decided states could not disqualify federal elected officials under the 14th Amendment “Insurrection Clause.”

Wasserman-Schulz added that the lawmakers will revise H.R. 7906, which would establish a civil court process to disqualify candidates for “insurrection,” introduced by Wasserman-Schulz in 2022.

Why It Matters: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is very unlikely to bring this bill to the floor. However, Wasserman-Schulz and Raskin are setting the stage for a Democrat-controlled House on 3 January 2025 to pass a bill disqualifying Trump from the presidency, setting up a Constitutional crisis on 20 January. - R.C.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Immunity case could lead to Court packing
« Reply #378 on: March 07, 2024, 07:55:44 AM »
second

(2) SCOTUS CONFIRMS TRUMP IMMUNITY HEARING FOR 25 APRIL: The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) said it will hear oral arguments on 25 April for former President Trump’s immunity appeal in the Washington D.C. election interference prosecution.

SCOTUS ordered Special Counsel Jack Smith to place the election interference case on hold until SCOTUS resolves Trump’s immunity claim.

Why It Matters: Even if the SCOTUS releases a decision on Trump’s immunity claim by this summer, the Washington D.C. election interference trial against Trump will very likely run through the November election. Any decision by the SCOTUS will fuel the legitimacy crisis the court is facing from both pro and anti-Trump lawmakers and voters. The SCOTUS deciding in Trump’s favor will renew calls from Democrats to pack the court. While unlikely to happen in an election year, a Democrat-controlled White House and Senate could move to pack the court in 2025. - R.C.


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2498
    • View Profile
Re: But wait! There are more!
« Reply #380 on: March 07, 2024, 08:48:23 AM »
third

https://dailycaller.com/2024/03/06/jonathan-turley-democrat-disqualify-dozens-republicans-14th-amendment/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29912&pnespid=vON4DHVFK7gewvLK.DSwFJCe406tWMt9PLfgmvQ49QBmNqxa.8tnaxvjrG1yRGm6tKtt9qtf

Grr. My guess is an underlying hope is to force Repubs to commit time/resources to fending off this effort ala Lawfare. Think if they were smart (fat chance) they should create a list of those Dems that gave succor to Antifa/BLM/et al "mostly peaceful" riots and say "we think this is an unconstitutional effort crafted to interfere with the election of Republicans and Republicans only, but if you insist on proceeding please add these names to your list," and then stand back and see what happens.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Claims of blind justice now look like blind pursuit of a specific person
« Reply #381 on: March 11, 2024, 12:05:22 PM »
Claims of blind justice increasingly look like the blind pursuit of a specific person.

  - Jonathon Turley

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/11/the-nightmare-scenario-how-a-trump-trial-could-now-run-up-to-or-through-the-2024-election/#more-216667

The backlog of federal criminal cases is 770,000, up 25% under Biden, but they are 'moving other cases and canceling trips to shoehorn Trump's cases' into the election campaign season.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2024, 12:08:36 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
The Case Against Biden
« Reply #383 on: March 13, 2024, 04:42:55 PM »
The Case Robert Hur Could Have Made Against Joe Biden
The special counsel described holes in the Biden story and a clear motive for breaking the law.
James Freeman
WSJ
March 13, 2024 4:52 pm ET




Democrats should be careful about insisting that President Joe Biden is mentally fit to stand trial or people might just decide to hold him accountable. Special counsel Robert Hur’s Tuesday appearance before the House Judiciary Committee highlighted not just the holes in the Biden story but also Mr. Biden’s possible motives for violating the law on the handling of classified information.

Taken together, the special counsel’s report and Tuesday’s hearing should make a reasonable person wonder whether Mr. Hur really needed to extract informative testimony from the forgetful Mr. Biden in order for a jury to find him guilty. And as a political matter, even if one believes Mr. Biden is mentally unfit today, what’s the excuse for his actions in the years before his presidency?

Mr. Hur’s report noted voluminous evidence—as if any were needed given Mr. Biden’s decades of experience—that Joe Biden understood very well the rules on classified documents and knew he was violating them. And even after the violations were exposed, the special counsel received in writing from Mr. Biden a defense that few jurors would likely find believable. The special counsel’s report stated:

As with the classified Afghanistan documents, there is evidence that Mr. Biden kept his notebooks after his vice presidency knowing they were classified and he was not allowed to have them.

The evidence shows convincingly that Mr. Biden knew the notebooks, as a whole, contained classified information. For eight years, he wrote in his notebooks about classified information during classified meetings in the White House Situation Room and elsewhere. He was familiar with the notebooks’ contents, which included obviously classified information. When reviewing the notebooks with [Biden ghostwriter Mark] Zwonitzer, Mr. Biden sometimes read aloud classified notes verbatim, but he also sometimes appeared to skip over classified information, and he warned Zwonitzer that the material in the notebooks could be classified. Mr. Biden also stored the notebooks in a classified safe in the White House for a time as vice president because the notebooks were classified.

In Mr. Biden’s written answers to questions from our office, he called into question whether he knew the information in his notebooks was classified. In those answers, Mr. Biden explained that when he described material in his notebooks to Zwonitzer as “classified’’ he did not actually mean “classified.” According to Mr. Biden, “I may have used the word ‘classified’ with Mr. Zwonitzer in a generic sense, to refer not to the formal classification of national security information, but to sensitive or private topics to ensure that Mr. Zwonitzer would not write about them.” Mr. Biden qualified this answer by explaining, “I do not recall the specific conversations you reference with Mr. Zwonitzer, which took place more than six years ago.”

This explanation-that “classified” does not mean “classified”-is not credible. At the time Mr. Biden met with Zwonitzer, Mr. Biden had nearly fifty years of experience dealing with classified information, including as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a member and Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, a member and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and Vice President of the United States. It is not plausible that a person of his knowledge and experience used the term “classified” in this context as a euphemism for “private.”

Are media folk still claiming that Mr. Biden cooperated with this inquiry? Interviewed in person last October, Mr. Biden largely presented himself as unaware of—or unable to recall—key details, which depending on one’s point of view may be a sign of impairment or evasion. Mr. Hur has much more, including this nugget in his report:

When Mr. Biden left office, he knew his staff decided to keep his classified notecards in a SCIF at the National Archives, and he knew his notebooks contained the same type of classified information. As he told his ghostwriter during a recorded interview in October 2016, the same staff who eventually arranged for careful storage of his classified notecards in an Archives SCIF “didn’t even know” he also had possession of his notebooks, which he simply took home without informing his staff.

There goes the staff excuse—not that Justice has been inclined to charge Biden staff any more than it wants to charge their boss. And according to the special counsel’s report there was actually a strong motive in this case, based on Mr. Biden’s work with the aforementioned Mr. Zwonitzer:

... Mr. Biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his notebooks. He decided months before leaving office to write a book and began meeting with his ghostwriter while still vice president. After his vice presidency, the notebooks continued to be an invaluable resource that he consulted liberally. During hours of recorded interviews in which he read aloud from his notebooks in his private home, Mr. Biden provided raw material to his ghostwriter detailing meetings and events that would be of interest to prospective readers and buyers of his book. He also likely viewed the notebooks, like the marked classified documents related to Afghanistan recovered from his garage, as an irreplaceable contemporaneous record of some of the most important moments of his vice presidency. This record was valuable to him for many reasons, including to help defend his record and buttress his legacy as a world leader.

As for the financial opportunity to tell a compelling story, Susan Ferrechio reports for the Washington Times on Tuesday’s hearing:

President Biden’s $8 million book deal was a likely motive behind his decision to take notebooks containing classified information when he left the White House in 2017, special counsel Robert K. Hur said...

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2498
    • View Profile
Loose Cannon About to Sink Smith?
« Reply #384 on: March 14, 2024, 01:27:46 PM »
Piece speculates Judge Cannon is about to toss Trump’s FL charges due to unequal prosecution. Taken with the piece Crafty posted above, it makes for damning indictment of Smith’s lawfare:

https://thepoliticsbrief.com/judge-cannon-takes-wrecking-ball-to-trump-classified-docs-case-citing-robert-hurs-report/?fbclid=IwAR0GlCnbqjf_35aZHOpvb9bPmh3NR15oC_BV4MXN6i6fp7oXJ6CSEYKzNY4

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #385 on: March 14, 2024, 01:33:26 PM »
Dems are explaining why Trump indicted but not Biden.

The latter because he obstructed justice by not turning over the documents, while Joe Biden turned them over immediately ( :roll:).

This argument falls flat on its face when comparing Trump not to Biden but to Hillary who clearly obstructed justice but destroying evidence.

No matter how the Dems try to spin it  that Trump's situation is "different" - it ain't.
two tiers of justice for sure



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Fanni Willis Judge does what is best for him
« Reply #386 on: March 15, 2024, 06:27:44 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/judge-says-either-willis-or-prosecutor-wade-must-step-aside-in-georgia-election-case/ar-BB1jWm4h?ocid=msedgntphdr&cvid=a0f91deffe81433e88436e2501595023&ei=18

like article said.
he has election coming up in Fulton County

of course Wade will sign off then Willis can carry on her crusade.

On the face of it to a non lawyer this decision does not even make sense.
It will interesting to hear the Turley's and Dershowitz's on our side make sense of this but it sounds likie a corrupt cop out to me.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2024, 06:32:39 AM by ccp »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #387 on: March 15, 2024, 06:46:35 AM »
PS

I guess lying to the Court and others earlier on by from my understanding not making full disclosure  does not warrant a removal......

so does this mean Wade can resign from case and trial can still be prior to election?
 :roll:


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #388 on: March 15, 2024, 08:11:40 AM »
"like article said. he has election coming up in Fulton County"
-----------------
A friend on the other side said to me regarding Trump's legal battles, "I trust the system. "

I don't. The location and jurisdiction of the prosecutor and jury pool have benn the determinants of outcomes more so than the facts of the cases.

We should have 99+% confidence in our justice system, not 50.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #389 on: March 15, 2024, 08:15:08 AM »
A friend on the other side said to me regarding Trump's legal battles, "I trust the system. "

No doubt a Democrat.

Does he/or she trust SCOTUS?

just wondering.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #392 on: March 15, 2024, 03:35:45 PM »
I agree with Dershowitz.



Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2498
    • View Profile
Yo Fani: Don't Dish It Out if You Can't Deal with It
« Reply #394 on: March 19, 2024, 10:50:00 AM »
Well argued piece stating it's time for Fani to be indicted for perjury:


It’s Time For Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp And His AG To Indict Fani Willis For Perjury

BY: WILL CHAMBERLAIN
MARCH 19, 2024


How can Fani Willis credibly prosecute Trump when there are reasonable questions about whether she lied in a Georgia court three weeks ago?
Author Will Chamberlain profile

Last week, Judge Scott McAfee issued his opinion on the potential disqualification of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her subordinate-slash-romantic partner Nathan Wade from Fulton County’s prosecution of Donald Trump and some 18 other Republicans relating to the 2020 election. McAfee found that there was no actual conflict of interest but did find that there was an appearance of impropriety, and held that Wade, but not Willis, had to resign from the prosecution.

The opinion was wrong on the facts and the law. But Trump and his co-defendants have strong grounds for appeal, and Fani Willis isn’t out of the woods yet. Moreover, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Attorney General Chris Carr need to do their job, get over whatever animus they have toward Trump, and indict Willis and Wade on perjury charges.

Factual Errors

There were two core factual issues Judge McAfee was charged with resolving. The first was whether Willis and Wade’s romantic relationship began before November 2021, when Willis hired Wade as a special prosecutor. The second was whether Willis had a conflict of interest resulting from Wade paying for vacations for the two of them while he was contracting with Willis’ office.

The first question should have been straightforwardly resolved against Willis and Wade. Willis’ former best friend and landlord, Robin Yeartie, reluctantly testified that the relationship did in fact begin back in 2019.

Judge McAfee dismissed Yeartie’s testimony as “lack[ing] context and detail.” Perhaps Judge McAfee didn’t bother to reread the transcript of the proceedings that happened in his own courtroom. Yeartie didn’t merely testify to the fact that Willis and Wade’s relationship began in 2019; she testified that she had multiple conversations with Willis about the relationship prior to 2022, and that she observed Willis and Wade hugging and kissing prior to 2022. It’s hard to understand what further detail McAfee expected Yeartie to provide.

Judge McAfee also completely brushed aside cell phone data showing that Wade often spent the night at Willis’ residence prior to November 2021, and that they exchanged thousands of phone calls and more than 10,000 text messages prior to when they claim their relationship began. It’s clear he had no desire to affirmatively find that Willis perjured herself.

Legal Errors

Judge McAfee’s factual findings, though bizarre and untethered to the evidence, are unlikely to be disturbed on appeal, as appellate courts must give a lot of deference to the factfinder. But there were also several suspect legal holdings in Judge McAfee’s opinion that are ripe for appeal.

Judge McAfee said that “the evidence did not establish the District Attorney’s receipt of a material financial benefit as a result of her decision to hire and engage in a romantic relationship with Wade” and that “the Defendants [did] not present[] sufficient evidence indicating that the expenses were not ‘roughly divided evenly.”

As Professor Alan Dershowitz pointed out, McAfee misapplied the law on this question. Defendants presented straightforward evidence that Willis benefited from hiring Wade: Wade’s credit card receipts showing that he paid for their joint vacations. Given the existence of these receipts, the burden should have been on Willis and Wade to prove that these expenses were reimbursed.

They could not do this, of course. Willis and Wade testified that the expenses were reimbursed in cash and provided no ATM receipts or bank deposit receipts to corroborate their clearly improvised story.

McAfee held that the burden was on the defense to prove that the expenses were not reimbursed. That’s improper as a matter of law, and as Dershowitz explained, it’s also grounds for reversal on appeal.

Further, Judge McAfee found that “neither side was able to conclusively establish by a preponderance of the evidence when the [Willis/Wade] relationship evolved into a romantic one.” This sentence is legally incoherent. If a prosecutor — or the defense — can “conclusively” prove a fact, that is equivalent to saying that they have proved that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The point of a “preponderance of the evidence” standard is that the fact does not have to be “conclusively” proved by the evidence; rather, there just needs to be more evidence supporting one side than the other.

If Judge McAfee had applied the preponderance of the evidence standard properly, there is no way he could have found it for Willis. On the side of finding that the relationship began in 2019, we have the disinterested testimony of Robin Yeartie, the text messages of Terrence Bradley, and the cell phone tower evidence showing that Wade was regularly in the vicinity of Willis’ residence in the early morning hours. On the other side of the ledger, he has the self-serving testimony of Willis and Wade denying the existence of the relationship. This shouldn’t have been a close question, but by subtly shifting the burden of proof and requiring the defendants to “conclusively” prove the existence of the relationship, McAfee avoided disqualifying Willis.

McAfee also held that an appearance of impropriety can warrant disqualification of individual prosecutors but not the whole prosecutor’s office, and further held that removing Wade would “cure” the appearance of impropriety.

This last legal holding is unlikely to survive appellate scrutiny. The appearance of impropriety implicates both Willis and Wade. As Jonathan Turley put it, it’s as though the police discovered two thieves in a bank vault and arrested only one. There are reasonable questions about whether Willis testified truthfully and about whether she financially gained from the prosecution. Those questions don’t just go away because Wade withdrew.

Willis Isn’t Out of the Woods

Even though Judge McAfee bent over backward to avoid disqualifying Willis and her office, the opinion created a ton of problems for Willis going forward. Judge McAfee described how an “odor of mendacity” permeates the case and acknowledged that “reasonable questions about whether [Willis and Wade] testified untruthfully … further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety.”

These factual findings provide fertile ground for a successful appeal by the defendants. Ashleigh Merchant, Steve Sadow, and the rest of the lawyers working for the defense are certainly going to ask Judge McAfee for a certificate of immediate appeal, so they can go straight to the court of appeals without waiting for the trial to conclude. That said, no one can force Judge McAfee to certify the issue for appeal, or the court of appeals to subsequently take the case. One hopes that both will exercise their discretion to remedy this injustice.

Moreover, Judge McAfee also found that Willis’ speech to a local Atlanta church, where she accused defendant Mike Roman and his lawyer Ashleigh Merchant of “playing the race card,” was, in McAfee’s words, “legally improper.” He’s right about that.

Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(g) mandates that prosecutors “refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.” McAfee declined to dismiss the indictment because of these comments, but Willis is still going to have issues with the Georgia Bar over what is a very straightforward violation of ethics rules.

Remember: Fani Willis is trying to put Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and others in jail for allegedly attempting to deceive Georgia courts three years ago. She can’t credibly continue to prosecute this case when there are “reasonable questions” about whether she attempted to deceive a Georgia court three weeks ago.

The “reasonable questions” about DA Willis’ truthfulness are already the subject of complaints to the Georgia Bar about Willis and Wade’s conduct. They should also serve as the predicate for an investigation by Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr into potential perjury charges against Willis and Wade. Carr, and his boss Brian Kemp, need to get off the sidelines. A partisan Democrat prosecutor has just lied under oath so that she can continue prosecuting Republicans for objecting to election results.

That cannot stand.

Will Chamberlain is currently Senior Counsel at the Article III Project and the Internet Accountability Project. Follow him on X at @willchamberlain.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/19/fani-willis-is-still-on-the-trump-case-but-not-free-of-her-legal-troubles/


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2498
    • View Profile
When I Comes to Lying About Sex ...
« Reply #396 on: April 01, 2024, 11:34:07 AM »
... Trump is held to a different standard (assuming he in fact DID lie about "hush money" payments):

Lies About Sex: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and NY States' Prosecution of Donald Trump

The Volokh Conspiracy by Steven Calabresi / Mar 30, 2024 at 10:44 PM//keep unread//hide

[Donald Trump should get the same pass for lying about sex that former president Bill Clinton got and that former 2004 Democratic Party Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards got]

The NY State criminal trial that is about to begin on April 15th is all about whether former President Donald Trump lied in his expense reports to cover up his payment of hush money to pornographic film star Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 presidential election. NY argues that in doing this Trump violated NY State laws, almost all of which involve misdemeanor offenses. The prosecution implies that Trump's alleged lies and coverup are a violation of federal campaign finance laws, which makes the misdemeanors more serious and justifies the prosecution.

First, it is settled U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) policy not to prosecute such cases, which is one of many possible reasons why the federal government has not brought any charges against Trump about the Stormy Daniels hush money matter. Another reason is that the DOJ may think Donald Trump's expense reports were truthful as Trump claims them to be. Second, when former President Bill Clinton perjured himself and engaged in obstruction of justice by denying under oath that he had had sexual relations with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky, both in a deposition and before a federal grand jury, the judgment of the U.S. Senate was that Bill Clinton's "lies about sex under oath" did not disqualify him from holding the presidency.

430 law professors signed a letter to the Senate on November 6, 1998 writing that "making false statements about sexual improprieties" under oath before a federal grand jury "is not a sufficient constitutional basis to justify the trial and removal of the President of the United States." Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein wrote on October 4, 1998 in The Washington Post that mere lies about sex under oath were not in his view disqualifying behavior in a president of the United States.

Both the law professors' letter and Professor Cass Sunstein's op-ed tried to argue that perjury about a person' private sex life fell in a different category from perjury about the execution of a President's political duties, which would be a disqualifying offense for a President to engage in. It was noted that people often lie about adulterous sex to protect their spouses and to preserve their marriages, and not to retain or to win the presidency.

Of course, this is exactly why Donald Trump allegedly paid Stormy Daniels what is alleged to be hush money because Trump's alleged affaire with Daniels coincided with his wife Melania giving birth to Trump's son Barron. Former President Bill Clinton's perjury under oath before a federal grand jury led to his acquittal by the Senate in his impeachment trial, and, after Clinton left office, the only penalty he paid for his lies under oath about sex to a federal grand jury was disbarment and the entry of a plea bargain. Donald Trump's alleged lies about sex in filing his expense accounts are minor compared to Bill Clinton's lies about sex under oath before a federal grand jury at a time when he had sworn that he would take care that the laws be faithfully executed. As many remember, Clinton's DNA was found on a white stain on Monika Lewinsky's blue dress proving that he had in fact had sexual relations with Lewinsky.

In 2004, the Democratic Party's nominee to be Vice President, John Edwards, paid a woman $1 million in hush money to cover up an alleged adulterous affair leading to the birth of an illegitimate child. The U.S. Justice Department prosecuted John Edwards who defended himself arguing that he was trying to protect his wife from learning about his adultery and that lies about sex and hush money to cover them up were not an illegal, unreported campaign donation. The trial resulted in a hung jury, and the U.S. Justice Department declined to re-prosecute John Edwards. The Department adopted a formal position that DOJ would not going forward prosecute as campaign finance violations the payment of hush money. Lies about sex were not fit to prosecute as campaign finance violations. Again, this explains why the federal government has declined to prosecute Donald Trump over his payments of hush money to Stormy Daniels and others.

Edwards' behavior involved much more hush money than Trump had paid, as well as the birth of an illegitimate child. If what John Edwards did was not a felony warranting jail time then what Donald Trump did in allegedly paying hush money to Stormy Daniels does not disqualify him for running for President either.

The disparate treatment of John Edwards, and Donald Trump for paying hush money and lying about having done so suggests NY State prosecutorial misconduct. Even if Trump were to be convicted in the sham proceeding set to begin on April 15th, voters should give him the same pass for lying in order to cover up adultery that was given to Bill Clinton and John Edwards.

The post Lies About Sex: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and NY States' Prosecution of Donald Trump appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/30/lies-about-sex-bill-clinton-john-edwards-and-ny-states-prosecution-of-donald-trump/


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
John Eastman disbarred in California
« Reply #398 on: April 02, 2024, 12:48:55 PM »
https://www.rawstory.com/john-eastman-law-license/

but it would help him if he makes a deal to testify against Trump !!!!

 :x