Author Topic: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War  (Read 49451 times)


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Lawfare, Trump Defense, NDA is a personal expense
« Reply #400 on: April 15, 2024, 07:40:10 AM »

Like buying a suit or whitening your teeth, you're doing it to get ready for the campaign but it is a personal expense.

If he had done it the other way around, taken a personal expense as a campaign expense, they would have scrutinized that as well.

Show me the man, I'll show you the crime.

The charge was elevated from misdemeanor to felony because it was committed to cover up a crime, that wasn't a crime.

The only real question for the court is can they find one honest juror.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2024, 10:30:25 AM by DougMacG »


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18598
    • View Profile
The entire left wing media mafia
« Reply #401 on: April 15, 2024, 08:34:13 AM »
in unison:



the rule of law[yers]!


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18598
    • View Profile
How crazy are these poll #s
« Reply #402 on: April 16, 2024, 05:16:00 AM »
AP-NORC Poll: 7 in 10 Side With Trump in New York Criminal Case

[not stated is probably 7 of 10 Manhattan New Yorkers side AGAINST Trump]

" Yet, a cloud of doubt hangs over all the proceedings. Only about 3 in 10 Americans feel that any of the prosecutors who have brought charges against Trump are treating the former president fairly. And only about 2 in 10 Americans are extremely or very confident that the judges and jurors in the cases against him can be fair and impartial. "


" Still, half of Americans would consider Trump unfit to serve as president if he is convicted of falsifying business documents to cover up payments to a woman who said he had an affair with."

Of course, it is the second part the Dems are so giddy about.  I don't get the numbers - makes no sense.


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #403 on: April 16, 2024, 06:44:49 AM »
Normalcy bias.

Acceptance that the integrity of the American legal system is a farce in many jurisdictions comes hard , , ,


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #404 on: April 16, 2024, 08:01:45 AM »
Trump accused of tearing the Do Not Remove tag off his mattress, first time this has ever been elevated to a felony.


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
WSJ: Lawfare via Sarbox
« Reply #405 on: April 16, 2024, 11:14:41 AM »
The Jan. 6 Riot Reaches the Supreme Court
Did the feds go too far in charging rioters with obstructing Congress under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
By The Editorial Board
April 15, 2024 5:30 pm ET

The people who breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, are being held accountable, and attempts to rebrand them as patriotic choirboys are a sign of the bizarre political times. Yet is it unduly stretching the law to prosecute Jan. 6 rioters using the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002?

The Supreme Court will consider this Tuesday in Fischer v. U.S., and rooting for the government to lose requires no sympathy for the MAGA mob. Joseph Fischer says in his brief that he arrived late to the Capitol, spent four minutes inside, then “exited,” after “the weight of the crowd” pushed him toward a police line, where he was pepper sprayed. The feds tell an uglier tale.

Mr. Fischer was a local cop in Pennsylvania. “Take democratic congress to the gallows,” he wrote in a text message. “Can’t vote if they can’t” The government says he “crashed into the police line” after charging it. Mr. Fischer was indicted for several crimes, including assaulting a federal officer. If true, perhaps he could benefit from quiet time in a prison library reading the 2020 court rulings dismantling the stolen election fantasy.

Sarbanes-Oxley, though? Congress enacted Sarbox, as it’s often called, in the wake of Enron and other corporate scandals. One section makes it a crime to shred or hide documents “corruptly” with an intent to impair their use in a federal court case or a Congressional investigation. That provision is followed by catchall language punishing anybody who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes” such a proceeding. Now watch, as jurists with Ivy degrees argue about the meaning of the word “otherwise.”

In Mr. Fischer’s view, the point of this law is to prohibit “evidence spoliation,” so the “otherwise” prong merely covers unmentioned examples. The government’s position is that the catchall can catch almost anything, “to ensure complete coverage of all forms of corrupt obstruction.” The feds won 2-1 at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Yet two judges were worried how far this reading would permit prosecutors to go. Judge Justin Walker, who joined the majority, said his vote depended on a tight rule for proving defendants acted “corruptly.”

Judge Gregory Katsas filed the vigorous dissent. The government “dubiously reads otherwise to mean ‘in a manner different from,’ rather than ‘in a manner similar to,’” he argued. The obstruction statute “has been on the books for two decades and charged in thousands of cases—yet until the prosecutions arising from the January 6 riot, it was uniformly treated as an evidence-impairment crime.”

A win for the feds, Judge Katsas warned, could “supercharge comparatively minor advocacy, lobbying, and protest offenses into 20-year felonies.” For example: “A protestor who demonstrates outside a courthouse, hoping to affect jury deliberations, has influenced an official proceeding (or attempted to do so, which carries the same penalty).” Or how about a Congressman (Rep. Jamaal Bowman) who pulls a fire alarm that impedes a House vote?

Special counsel Jack Smith has charged Donald Trump with obstructing a Congressional proceeding, and he says Mr. Trump’s “fraudulent electoral certifications” in 2020 are covered by Sarbox, regardless of what the Supreme Court does in Fischer. The other piece of context is that prosecutors going after Jan. 6 rioters have charged obstruction in hundreds of cases. But if those counts are in jeopardy, don’t blame the Supreme Court.

Presumably many of those defendants could be on the hook for disorderly conduct or other crimes, and the feds can throw the book at them. What prosecutors can’t do is rewrite the law to create crimes Congress didn’t.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18598
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #407 on: April 19, 2024, 09:02:38 AM »
A jury of his political enemies peers

Like in the old South, a black man facing an all white jury.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #408 on: April 19, 2024, 09:18:47 AM »
A jury of his political enemies peers

Like in the old South, a black man facing an all white jury.

So true.  The zip code of the trial should not determine guilt or innocence.

He has no chance at unanimous acquittal,  so will be stained with hung jury or felon no matter what happens.

I'm not against charging a former office holder with a crime,  but it should be rock solid, crystal clear case to take any American from private life to incarceration, and this is not.  It must be a crime that ANYONE who committed that act would be charged with.  Clearly this is not.

Judge could have ruled the state had plenty of time to try this case not during the campaign.  He did not.

A state conviction cannot be pardoned by a President....
« Last Edit: April 19, 2024, 09:23:18 AM by DougMacG »


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Politics by Lawfare, NY Trump Trial Jurors
« Reply #409 on: April 21, 2024, 09:27:57 AM »
Here I am, posting analysis from Slate:

Jurors chosen are the ones who best hide their views and most persuasively say they will keep an open mind to the facts and the law.

They all seem to get their news from the New York Times.  Does anyone inside of NY know that is the radical left wing publication that led the phony Russian collusion story for 2 years and never recanted it - among all their other left wing activisms.

Every juror is either from NY or moved to this most urban, most liberal jurisdiction by choice.

There were limits on how many objections the defense team could make.  Every time they block one, one more comes up from the same pool.

My take is that there may be one, two at most who stand strong against a wrongful guilty verdict.  A not guilty verdict is not possible.


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #410 on: April 21, 2024, 04:06:26 PM »
There are at least two attorneys on the jury.  Perhaps one or both with have the mental coherence to grasp the incoherent inanity of the charges.


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
« Reply #411 on: April 22, 2024, 10:07:59 AM »

(4) PUNISHMENT OF TRUMP OFFICIALS, SUPPORTERS CONTINUES: A three judge panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas State Bar can continue its administrative actions against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, alleging that Paxton made false representations to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn 2020 election results.

Former Trump attorney John Eastman said he has been “debanked” by Bank of America and USAA while facing possible disbarment in California.

Why It Matters: National and state level Democrats punishing former Trump officials through disbarment, cutting off post-government job tracks in media, and now “debanking” increase the chance of a counter elite developing in the United States. These actions also very likely increase the chances of future Trump administration officials taking more radical policy positions. Prospective officials concerned about post-administration employment or being punished legally or extra-legally would likely be deterred from serving. – R.C.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #412 on: April 22, 2024, 11:51:55 AM »
There are at least two attorneys on the jury.  Perhaps one or both with have the mental coherence to grasp the incoherent inanity of the charges.

Yes, very possible.  OTOH, lawyers are 93% Democrat [or something like that] and perhaps able to find reasons to support their desired outcome.

What I would look for are the 'double haters', or people who despise Trump but don't appreciate this tactic against him.  The lawyers might fit that.  People who never liked Trump, detest him personally, but start to realize the other side is f'd up too.  Like you say, maybe they can look past a political and personal bias and rule on the merits of the case and the meaning of the law.  Depending on what they see in the case, an 'honest' Democrat could vote to acquit on these charges and still want him to lose in the election.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
NYT Today!

Boston University Law Professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman:

About a year ago, when Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, indicted former President Donald Trump, I was critical of the case and called it an embarrassment. I thought an array of legal problems would and should lead to long delays in federal courts.

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the Manhattan D.A. has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.  (Source:

Exactly what WE said.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2024, 12:08:10 PM by DougMacG »


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18598
    • View Profile
« Reply #416 on: April 26, 2024, 04:57:52 AM »
TV lawyers favorite word lately,

I've heard it used more in the past month then my entire life.

Democrat lawyers taking over the Nat Enquirer and publishing their unpublished stories.
Great fodder for network TV, but totally ridiculous as a legal matter.  Corporate profits galore.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18598
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #418 on: April 28, 2024, 03:52:54 PM »
Another thought about this:

We will not hear any "historians" other then VDH who will ever mention this when speaking of Obama.

Where are all the conservative historians???  Other then VDH I don't recall seeing any.

Doris Kearns Goodwin - no (long time liberal)
Jon Meacham - no  (speechwriter for Biden and fires from even MSNBC reportedly for not disclosing that but probably some other reason)

Michael Beschloss - no
Sean Wilentz - no (although in wikipedia he did once criticize O for Ayers and Wrightbut also calls DJT the worst president in history)

Allida Black - no  (author of Modern American Queer History and of course a Clinton advocate)

Anne Applebaum - no  ( in Wiki - she is on the board of Renew Democracy Initiative Look at the members of the Board - a who's who of Trump haters and TDS types:  Senator Bob Kerrey, Annie Duke, Igor Kirman, Linda Chavez, Michael Steele, Congressman Mickey Edwards and Retired Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. RDI's advisory board includes Anne Applebaum, Bill Kristol, Bret Stephens, Dan Benton, Daniel Hurwitz, Eric Wolf, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, Lisa Berg, Lucy Caldwell, Max Boot, Mark Lasswell, Rachel Vindman, Rina Shah, General Stanley McChrystal, and Whitney Haring-Smith.[7])

If interested, you can read more about these "authorities" here:


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Chutzpah on Parade?
« Reply #419 on: April 29, 2024, 11:28:41 AM »
If this pans out it will explain a lot, like why Jack Smith is resisting the release of these sorts of discovery timelines. Nut graf: post 2020 election Trump told by General Services Administration to deal with 6 pallets of documents, Trump has docs shipped to his digs in Florida, and soon thereafter is charged with housing classified docs, with many of the apparently found in the boxes marked classified that the GSA told Trump they had to ship to him:


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Yes Virginia, there is a Vast Anti-Trump Legal Conspiracy
« Reply #420 on: April 29, 2024, 01:31:54 PM »
2nd post. Hmm, so it appears there is a weekly Friday meeting of various anti-Trump zealots to hash out the various lawfare strategies in play at any given moment:


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Politics by Lawfare, Byron York
« Reply #421 on: May 07, 2024, 07:20:28 AM »


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #422 on: May 07, 2024, 09:02:13 AM »
 :-o :-o :-o


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18598
    • View Profile
NY prosecutors in Trump trial
« Reply #423 on: May 07, 2024, 11:42:38 PM »
let's see:

one Fordham Law school

one Yale Law school

and four Harvard Law school (including Bragg)


did 4 have classes with Larry Tribe?   and none with Dershowitz?

so all these supposed IVy lawyers think this is a good case.    :roll:


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #424 on: May 08, 2024, 07:05:30 AM »
The real reason for the Trump trial is to put the salacious alleged details of Trump's infidelity in front of the public eye again. Slate headline says as much.

Meanwhile Democrats put forward purists like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Joe Biden.

When will we see the personnel record of Tara Reide?  (never)

By the way Slate, Stormy Daniels is not her name.
"Stormy Daniels’ Turn as a Witness Brings Home What This Trial Is About"

No, at least legally, that is not what this trial is about.

« Last Edit: May 08, 2024, 07:10:30 AM by DougMacG »


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18598
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #425 on: May 08, 2024, 07:42:23 AM »
re reading my post 2 posts ago I forgot to add 2 prosecutors from Columbia Law

so basically an IVY league team sent to assassinate Trump.....


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
The Sheer Weight of Slime
« Reply #426 on: May 08, 2024, 08:59:00 AM »
A fine survery of the sundry lawfare tendrils Trump is enduring:

America is On Trial, and Amerika is Too
A guilty verdict for one, is a guilt verdict for the other

MAY 08, 2024
It’s easy to get bored of talking (or even reading) about the Trump trials.

And it’s easy to get lost in how much there is to say. The sheer weight of the thing. The size of it. The number of charges. The number of crimes (by which I mean both the number of ‘crimes’ which don’t apply but which Trump is charged with, and the number of actual crimes committed by those bringing these cases against him).

Jupplandia is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

But I think its important to still give a summary of what those cases are. I’ll explain why after the summary.

First there were the E. Jean Carroll civil cases, in which an eccentric Democrat columnist fantasized about an imaginary sexual assault for which she could provide no evidence and which was supposed to have occurred decades earlier, and was then funded by a major Democrat donor to bring cases in a Democrat city before Democrat judges and juries to decide whether a Republican was guilty of this crime for which no evidence existed. This was the one that decided that the statute of limitations no longer applies when Democrats decide it doesn’t apply, and that crimes can be proven without the existence of any proof.

Both of these were important principles to establish for the other cases to be able to proceed.

In a surprising twist, Democrat Judge Kaplan allowed a Manhattan Democrat jury to find Trump liable for both sexual assault and defamation. In a following ruling he decided that Trump had defamed E. Jean Carroll by pointing out that she is a liar, and in a further surprise a Democrat jury then decided that Trump should pay a total of 83.3 million dollars to the woman who lied about him for the crime of calling her a liar.

Now apparently settled with another enormous fine (Trump has agreed to pay 175 million dollars, reduced from the original theft of 350 million) was the New York civil case (the Real Estate Fraud Case) prosecuted by Letitia James and presided over by Judge Engoron. This was the one that saw a Judge with an established hatred of Trump rule that expert testimony regarding real estate valuation could be dismissed with a judicial slander of the witness, that normal business practice in real estate is fraud when conducted by Donald Trump, and that fraud can still be present when the supposedly defrauded ‘victims’ all state that no fraud occurred.

Following that there’s the Documents Case, that Jack Smith is prosecuting and that Judge Cannon is presiding over. (“On June 8, 2023, former President Donald Trump and his aide Waltine Nauta were indicted by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida on charges related to the alleged mishandling of classified documents at Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago. A superseding indictment was unsealed on July 27, 2023, which charged an additional defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, and included three additional charges against Trump of evidence tampering, willfully retaining national defense information, and lying to investigators”).

Judge Cannon stands out as pretty much the only judge overseeing these cases who wasn’t a Democrat pick (McAfee was appointed by Kemp, but doesn’t seem to be a declared Republican. If he is, its from the same RINO wing that went along with Trump’s impeachments), and entirely coincidentally of course this is the case where it has already been established in court that the FBI investigators tampered with the key evidence and that the Democrat prosecutors lied to the judge. During the unprecedented FBI raid that acquired the ‘evidence’ for this case, the FBI took it upon themselves to spread documents around on the floor before taking ‘incriminating’ pictures of them (On June 9th, 2023 Trump posted on Truth Social that the scattered files had been “staged” by the FBI. As usual, he was right). Those pictures were publicly released (who does that with real evidence in a real case?) to justify the raid.

To make those pictures just how they wanted them, they attached confidential, top secret sheets to the documents, which they had created. They have now had to admit that they did this, and that when the prosecution told Judge Cannon that the documents being used as evidence were in the condition they were found in, this was a lie. Scans of the contents and the current contents do not match. There is in fact therefore no way to prove that the documents haven’t been more thoroughly tampered with, just as if seized drugs used as evidence had been handled and moved around by unrecorded agents instead of stored, unchanged, in an evidence locker where every interaction with them is recorded. On top of that, the documents may come from a batch of documents (SIX pallet loads) that Trump and his assistants were forced to take by repeated demands to do so (from General Services Administration).

There’s also the Hush Money Case relating to Stormy Daniels, prosecuted by Alvin Bragg which Judge Merchan is presiding over. (“The indictment includes 34 counts of felony falsification of business records primarily related to the alleged hush money payments”). Judge Merchan is, and hold your surprise on this one, a Democrat judge with an established hatred of Trump. 

Next there’s the Jan 6th Conspiracy Case, which includes 2 counts of obstruction and 2 of criminal conspiracy based on the idea that Trump encouraged Jan 6th and plotted to overturn a legitimate result. That one is the one where the Supreme Court is now pondering the issue of Presidential immunity, but the original case was again prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith and is presided over by Judge Chutkan.

Finally, of the major cases still active there is the Fulton County, Georgia case (the RICO Conspiracy Case) which is prosecuted by Democrat District Attorney Fani Willis and presided over by Judge McAfee. This is the one that casts all of the efforts to acknowledge massive electoral fraud as a series of criminal racketeering acts under legislation designed for the prosecution of organised crime syndicates. The counts include things like deciding that a President or members of his administration questioning fraud is guilty of the crime of impersonating a public official. This was also the case in which we found out that the prosecutor hired her boyfriend on a very generous publicly funded salary to work on the case and also enjoyed romantic trips with him before lying about the nature of their relationship.

If you want excellent commentary on these cases individually or collectively, Julie Kelly has been providing this, in detail, on her Substack. If you want a summary of them all with links to mainstream media articles (for what that is worth, if anything…it at least shows us what insane justifications they are constructing) then the Lawfare website (at>current-projects>the-trump-trials) provides an incredibly helpful listing of all of them.

So why should we still be talking about these cases, why should we still be interested? Half of them are mired in legal back and forth and are subject to long delays. One is awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on Presidential immunity.

One of the things I’ve noticed when discussing any of the real crimes occurring at present is how the sheer magnitude of what is being done sometimes makes addressing it difficult. Let’s say our subject is the dishonesty of the mainsteam media in relation to Trump. Where do we start? Do we talk about the way they pressed Russian collusion for years? Do we talk about that? But then that leads us into related facts, like John Brennan presenting Obama in a meeting with the knowledge that this collusion narrative was a fiction invented by a probable Russian agent working for Hilary Clinton. That then evokes the memory of over 50 intelligence agents lying about Russian collusion as well in a public statement.

Or do we talk about how ‘drink bleach’ and ‘there are good Nazis’ were both lies presented as confirmed truths by the mainstream media?

Or are we then led into a wider discussion of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ and how none of the people deploying these terms are themselves truthful? Do we mention the suppression of Lab Leak during Covid, or science advisors distorting the evidence being presented to Trump and then boasting about it in their books?

With the ‘lawfare’ being conducted at present, which one of the 91 charges do we talk about first? If we want to show prosecutorial and judicial malpractice, we are overly spoilt for choice. No one article is going to be able to cover how much of a crook Jack Smith is, let alone Smith, Willis and Bragg together with Engoron, Chutkan and Merchan as a group. Every one of these people are people who should be recused from involvement in cases regarding a political opponent they personally detest. In each and every case there is boundless evidence of conflicts of interest from those bringing and hearing the cases, ones which make the very idea that the process we are witnessing is ‘justice’ obscenely laughable.

How can a judge fairly preside over the case of a person they hate with every fiber of their being, a person they hate more personally and deeply than they ever hate drug dealers, rapists or child abusers appearing in court before them?

How can a prosecutor be allowed to bring cases against political opponents when they have campaigned on the basis of getting that person, by ANY means, when they have publicly made that declaration as part of their own political promise?

How on Earth is anyone supposed to pretend that such a political promise, when it manifests as a legal reality, is a legitimate response to a real crime,rather than a purely political witch hunt? Of course it is a purely political witch hunt….it was a campaign pledge!

How is any of this allowed to go this far, when at every stage the basic legal requirements of any approach towards actual justice are being deliberately and continuously set aside?

Freedom from unjust, politically motivated fines and punishments, and from cruel and unusual treatment? Set aside.

The requirement that there be some actual, untampered with, legitimate evidence on which a case comes to trial? Set aside.

The statute of limitations and its role protecting people from baseless accusations brought forward years after all evidence has vanished? Set aside.

The right to an unbiased jury, selected without political intent, in a place where justice is at least a possibility? Set aside.

Client attorney privilege? Set aside.

Freedom of speech and the right to defend oneself against accusers, including the right to point out their connections and conflicts of interest? Set aside by gagging orders.

The Presidential Records Act and all prior precedent on the treatment of former Presidents relating to documents? Set aside.

The actual purpose of the legislation you are using, like the RICO Act? Set aside.

The right to expect that the statutes used against you are being used as they have always been used, rather than that they are twisted into entirely novel interpretations with no basis in law? Set aside.

The expectation of equality before the law, and that the same actions require the same responses and the same justice? Set aside.

The difference between a misdemeanor and a felony? Set aside.

The need to prove an underlying crime and announce what crime is actually being responded to in order to change an accounting error into a felony ? Set aside.

How do you take the documents case seriously, for example, when Joe Biden can take documents as Vice President he had no right to take, leave them in his car or scattered around multiple locations,unprotected and unsecured, for years, and at the same time that Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump, Joe Biden gets a free pass on that? And Mike Pence does too? And Bill Clinton did? No amount of mainstream media MSNBC articles beginning ‘No, These Cases Aren’t the Same’ excuses that double standard away.

How do you take fraud cases based on two words in a private ledger seriously, when the prosecution won’t tell you or the judge what the actual crime is?

So where do you start with all this, where do you end?

Well, in a way, it is better to talk about the generality than the specifics, not because the details favor the other side, but because there are a million details that do not. There is too much criminality, selectivity, hypocrisy and outright tyranny in the process to ever be able to mention it all.

And the generality is that all of this only occurs in a system that is already utterly corrupt. It’s tempting to say broken, but that’s not accurate. It’s doing what it now exists to do, which is enforce a regime and crush all opposition to the regime. Those holding the levers of power are directing it this way, on this path. This is where they want to go.

The form of a US justice system still exists. It’s simply that all the justice has been removed from it.

Yes, Donald Trump is on trial. But that’s not really the big picture, as unjust and as disgusting as this treatment of Trump undoubtedly is.

America itself is on trial. The old America is on trial. The America of equal justice, and the America of decent values, and the America of any hope at all that any part of this nation remains a shining dream instead of a soiled nightmare.

And Amerika is on trial too. The Amerika of the regime, the Amerika of the nightmare. The Amerika that acts like a banana republic, the Amerika of One Party Rule, the Amerika where one side of politics and its supporters stole an election, imprisoned protesters and dissidents without trial and finally made questioning electoral theft a new crime with which to imprison the old President it removed.

There are two nations on the same soil, and neither can abide the other.

The verdict against Trump will be the verdict on both of them. Is it a place of equal justice where people have the right to vote for the candidate and policies they want? Or is it going to be, for a long time to come, a tyranny where all the Third World rules apply? That’s already not being decided by an election, even a rigged one. It’s being decided in court.

If Trump wins, America wins. If Amerika wins, Trump has lost.

But so has America. At that point, it will have lost just about everything that made it America in the first place.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18598
    • View Profile
Deep state trying to squeeze another 100 mill out of DJT
« Reply #427 on: May 11, 2024, 07:04:51 PM »


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
ET: Eastman still in the fight-- strong piece
« Reply #428 on: May 12, 2024, 05:16:10 AM »

Suspended, De-Banked, But Not Sorry: John Eastman ‘Tenfold’ More Convinced of Illegalities in 2020

By Brad Jones
|April 24, 2024
May 03, 2024
LOS ANGELES—As the sunlight creeps in the windows of a downtown hotel lobby just blocks away from a courtroom in California, constitutional scholar John Eastman is unfazed, even jovial, in spite of having just spent 10 weeks on trial defending his license to practice law—and in spite of a ruling from a State Bar of California judge recommending that his law license be revoked.

Last summer, the State Bar charged Mr. Eastman, the former dean of Chapman University Law School, with 11 counts of misconduct related to his role in representing former President Donald Trump after the 2020 presidential election.

But Mr. Eastman told The Epoch Times in an exclusive interview on April 5 that he has no regrets about representing President Trump or alleging fraud and questioning the election results.

“What I saw at the time raised real serious questions in my mind about the validity of the election,” he said.

Since then, Mr. Eastman said, his investigation has confirmed his suspicions “tenfold.”

Mr. Eastman, who was accused of not having the evidence to back up those allegations, said he will appeal Judge Yvette Roland’s March 27 ruling recommending disbarment, but in the meantime, his law license has been suspended on “involuntary inactive enrollment,” which means he can’t practice law in California.

He’s still an active member of the District of Columbia Bar, where he is currently representing U.S. Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in a federal case against the California cities of Anaheim and Riverside for allegedly conspiring to suppress and shut down their political rallies, infringing on their constitutional rights to free speech.

“Some federal courts, as long as you’re licensed someplace, you’re allowed to continue. If you’re suspended in any place, even if you have active licenses elsewhere, there is a process to go through on whether they’re going to suspend you as well,” Mr. Eastman said.

In 2020, Mr. Eastman was invited to join an election integrity working group, formed in anticipation of post-election litigation in connection with the presidential election, organized at President Trump’s request, and on Dec. 6, 2020, Mr. Eastman received a formal engagement letter for legal services defining the scope of the agreement.

Democrat-appointed Judge Roland ruled that Mr. Eastman broke ethics rules by advancing President Trump’s challenges to the integrity of the 2020 election.

The judge stated in her ruling that “despite compelling evidence against him, ... Eastman remains defiant, refusing to acknowledge any impropriety whatsoever in his actions surrounding his efforts to dispute the 2020 presidential election results.”

“His lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his misconduct is deeply troubling,” she wrote.

“Eastman continues to hold the view that his statements were factually and legally justified. He demonstrated disdain for these proceedings by characterizing them as a political persecution, claiming that the disciplinary charges against him contained false and misleading statements, and that those who brought them should themselves be disbarred.

“[His] complete denial of wrongdoing, coupled with his attempts to discredit legitimate disciplinary proceedings are concerning.”

Mr. Eastman stopped short of criticizing the judge, but he noted that Rachel Alexander, a reporter at the Arizona Sun who covered the trial extensively, pointed out several examples of bias in the case and questioned the rationale behind the ruling, which dismissed the evidence Mr. Eastman brought forth.

“You would think that the ruling would at least confront the evidence and explain why it wasn’t sufficient,” he said. “What was the point? Not even mentioned!”

Mr. Eastman said he has solid grounds for appeal because Judge Roland dispensed with the First Amendment arguments “without really grappling with binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent.”

“This is an unprecedented move. It was initiated by hyper-partisan leftists that are trying to attack President Trump and anybody that supported him. This is a weaponization of our judicial system and our bar disciplinary processes that has never occurred in our history before,” he said.

“We even had former California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown designated as a witness to talk about that, and she was prohibited from testifying as a witness.”

Mr. Eastman drew from evidence provided by Garland Favorito, a retired information technology professional and founder of VoterGA, a nonpartisan, nonprofit election integrity group.

Mr. Favorito is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed on Dec. 23, 2020, that challenged the authenticity of 147,000 absentee ballots cast in Georgia’s Fulton County.

He discovered “thousands of ballots that were duplicated and counted multiple times” in deep blue areas of Atlanta in violation of state law, Mr. Eastman said.

“We also had Michael Gableman, former Supreme Court justice of Wisconsin ... who was retained by the Legislature to conduct an investigation, and they discovered hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots,” he said.

Mr. Gableman uncovered alleged nursing home fraud, which Mr. Eastman said accounts for much more than the 20,000-vote margin of victory for President Joe Biden, and voter turnout rates in nursing homes went from 20 percent to 30 percent historically to nearly 100 percent, including from within memory care wings.

“Many of the ballots are in the same handwriting, so the illegality opened the door for fraud, which Gableman proved ... and it affected way more than 20,000 ballots,” he said.

“There’s no question Wisconsin was stolen. To this day, there are 120,000 more ballots than voters in Pennsylvania, a state where the margin was 80,000.”

Americans used to go to a local polling place such as a neighborhood community room at the library or the local church to vote, but in 2020, mail-in ballots were counted in much larger facilities in big cities such as Atlanta, Detroit, and Philadelphia where it would be “much easier to sneak in a pallet of ballots,” he said.

Although ballot harvesting is legal in California, it was illegal in many states during the 2020 election.

A worker oversees pallets of mail-in ballots being unloaded at a U.S. Postal Service processing and distribution center in Portland, Ore., on Oct. 14, 2020. Mr. Eastman said that in 2020, mail-in ballots were counted in much larger facilities in big cities where it would be “much easier to sneak in a pallet of ballots.” (Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

‘Jiu-Jitsu Move’

Mr. Eastman, who has held his California law license for more than 26 years, seems undaunted and unapologetic, holding steadfast to his belief he had every right to do what he did.
His children are proud of him for taking a stand and for his courage and intellectual fortitude, he said, and although he is up to the challenge, he said he would “much rather be doing other things.”

“I’ve been involved in Supreme Court cases for over 20 years, designed a litigation strategy for the Claremont Institute to bring back a lot of original meaning of the Constitution, and a lot of my work is coming to fruition, and now I’m on defense instead of helping on the offensive,” he said.

The use of the disciplinary system to go after political opponents for doing nothing other than what lawyers are obligated ethically to do on behalf of their clients is lawfare, Mr. Eastman said.

“It’s an abuse of the legal system ... and a complete violation of separation of powers,” he said. “This is the kind of thing that banana republics do, or Stalinist Russia did. It’s not the kind of thing that America has ever done.”

He also criticized the corporate media for having entrenched narratives.

“They’ve got a narrative, and anything that doesn’t fit that narrative, they either distort or don’t cover it at all,” he said.

He said he thinks one of the reasons he has come under such a “vicious attack” is that he has “the credibility” to call out the media.

“I like the phrase that Rush Limbaugh came up with for the media,“ he said. ”He called them the drive-by media. [They] drive by and take potshots without ever having to defend the position [they’re] taking.”

The left, he said, is trying to tear him down to avoid examining the evidence.

“It’s the combination of the credibility: my credentials, my constitutional expertise, my tenacity, and the fact that I’m telling the truth,” he said. “That’s why when I put on true evidence in my bar trial, they’ve got to completely destroy it because what it means, if I’m right about this, is that they stole the election.”

So far, Democrats have successfully made it appear as though President Trump was trying to steal the election, Mr. Eastman said.

“You’ve gotta hand it to ’em. That’s quite a jiu-jitsu move,” he said.

De-Banked, Death Threats

Since he decided to represent President Trump, Mr. Eastman and his family have also been harassed and threatened by leftist activists in his hometown of Sante Fe, New Mexico.
Vandals buried four-inch steel spikes into his dirt driveway, which blew two sets of tires on his vehicle, he said.

“We had people piling dog crap at the foot of our mailbox,” he said. “We had people spray painting on the road leading to our house with a big arrow, our address, my name, and basically doxing me, encouraging people to commit acts of vandalism against us.”

Three to eight protesters gathered every day at the end of the block for a year, Mr. Eastman said.

“We get death threats,” he said.

Mr. Eastman has referred some of these threats to the FBI, and the state police have stepped up patrols near his residence, he said.

“We live down the road a little bit from the governor’s mansion, so they’re regularly running patrols for the New Mexico governor, and so they ... put us on the patrol route,” he said.

Mr. Eastman has not only been threatened with disbarment but he has also been allegedly de-banked by Bank of America and USAA.

“We’ve been 40-year customers of Bank of America, and last September, they sent us a letter saying that they’d made the decision not to continue to do business with us and were closing our accounts,” Mr. Eastman said.

The bank provided a number to call for an explanation, but when Mr. Eastman called, no such explanation was given.

“It’s just a recording that says: ‘If you’ve gotten a letter saying we’re canceling your accounts, our explanation is we don’t give any explanations. Thank you very much, goodbye,’” he said.

Two months later, he received a similar letter from USAA, which had become the Eastmans’ primary bank, saying it was closing their accounts, with a similar recorded message saying its policy is not to give any further information.

“They closed the account,” he said. “USAA was really surprising because their clientele is all military or children of military. My wife’s father was in the Navy in World War II, and in the Marines in the Korean War, and that’s why we were eligible to have accounts there, and they just canceled them without any explanation whatsoever.”

ept. 15, 2008. Mr. Eastman has been allegedly de-banked by Bank of America. (Davis Turner/Getty Images)

His Early Life

Growing up, Mr. Eastman, who was born in Lincoln, Nebraska, moved from state to state as his father was transferred with every promotion at his job with Eastman-Kodak (no relation).
“They had a policy: You never supervised your immediate past colleagues, so every little rung up meant a transfer. So we were like army brats. We’d do two years here and three years there,” he said.

He lived in Washington state, Kentucky, New Jersey, upstate New York, and Texas before moving to Orange County, California, to attend grad school.

By the 1980 election, Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan was “making sense” to Mr. Eastman, who said he remains a “Reagan conservative.”

Mr. Eastman graduated from high school in Texas and ended up at the University of Dallas.

Near the end of the campaign, Mr. Reagan made a whistle-stop tour to Dallas for rallies and fundraisers, where Mr. Eastman was the Dallas County Republican Party volunteer chairman. But as a 20-year-old student, that meant “you’re the guy that has the Secret Service clearance badge to load the luggage onto the plane,” he said.

The Monday night after the weekend event, future President Reagan and future First Lady Nancy Reagan were preparing to fly on the campaign jet to Century City, California, for the election night watch party the next day, but their flight clearance had been delayed by 45 minutes.

Mr. Eastman recalled that when Mr. Reagan noticed him waiting on the tarmac, he said to him: “So, young fellow, every time I turn around the last couple of days, you’re there working the line or working the luggage. Why don’t you come up and have a cup of coffee and doughnuts with me and Nancy?”

Mr. Eastman worked for the Reagan administration near the end of the last term but always regretted never getting a photograph with President Reagan, so in 1992, he wrote the former president and asked him if he’d mind posing for a picture with him and his wife in Century City.

In the letter, Mr. Eastman recounted his memory of meeting the Reagans in Dallas.

“He remembered the event on the tarmac. He was very gracious,” Mr. Eastman said.

But on the drive from Diamond Bar to meet President Reagan in Century City, an oil tanker crashed on the CA-60 highway delaying traffic for an hour and a half, and he couldn’t call the former president until he finally reached a gas station that had a payphone. When he did call, “very apologetically,” President Reagan was kind enough to wait with the photographer.

“The first thing he does is apologize because he’s not in his formal suit-and-tie,” even though he was still “dressed to the nines” in a more casual sport coat because he was heading to an event at a country club, Mr. Eastman recalled.

“My wife was pregnant with our first child, so we’ve got the two of us and the baby bump and Reagan in the picture,” he said.

Double Standards

The double standards in today’s political power structure are blatant and have reached the point at which most conservatives won’t question the state, he said.

“You’re not allowed to ask, unless you’re a Democrat,” he said. “Hillary Clinton is still out on the stump saying that the 2016 election was stolen from her and they perpetrated the biggest political fraud in American history with illegal money laundering through their law firm to pay for the Fusion GPS, false story on the Russian dossier. And then they used that false story, which everybody knew was false, including the higher-ups at the FBI and the Department of Justice. They used that and doctored the evidence ... to get FISA warrants to spy on the opposing political campaign.”

Yet those who perpetrated this plot against President Trump haven’t been charged with any crimes or threatened with disbarment and lawsuits, he said.

“They spied on him during the campaign. They continued to spy on him after he won, and they continued to spy on him after he was inaugurated. This is the biggest political scandal in our nation’s history,” Mr. Eastman said. “That was an attempted coup, and they’re all off the hook because the power structure supports them.”

Deborah Pauly, whose Conservative Patriots of Orange County group hosted a rally for Mr. Eastman in August 2023, told The Epoch Times that what the media, left-wing activists, and even some Republicans have done to Mr. Eastman and his family is “flat out evil.”

Her group supports Mr. Eastman’s efforts to protect the United States’ constitutional form of government, she said.

“What is happening here—not just with Dr. John Eastman, but in other cases, too—is a direct threat to our form of government,” she said. “Anyone who cares about our Constitution should be very concerned.”

Cancel culture has gone from censorship on social media to silencing doctors who dared express “divergent thought” during the COVID-19 pandemic, and “attacking the nation’s top constitutional law attorney,” she said.

Ms. Pauly said that although Mr. Eastman is “standing strong,” the threats to his means of livelihood and the safety of his family have prevented others from speaking out about election integrity.

“All he did was put forth an untested theory,” she said. “The fact that someone who is so highly regarded as a constitutional law authority is being silenced and subjected to great humiliation and great pain and suffering quite frankly—not just in his professional life, but in the personal toll that it takes on someone to be under attack like this—is significant.”

The United States’ success as a nation hinges on the balance of power among the three equal branches of government and a balance between the states and the federal government, but it is up to the people and the media to keep that balance, Ms. Pauly said.

“That’s not happening for many reasons, and that’s a real problem. Everything is out of whack,” she said.

It’s infuriating to watch other attorneys and conservative leaders who once cozied up to Mr. Eastman when he transformed Chapman University Law School into a nationally recognized program turn their backs on him now, Ms. Pauly said.

“That, to me, is the most repugnant part of it,” she said. “They’re part of the swamp.”

Mr. Eastman said the federal government has become more authoritarian under the Biden administration.

“We’ve gotten to the point where when the government speaks, you better bend your knee and repeat what they say or they’ll try to destroy you. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the election or CRT [critical race theory] or DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] or vaccines or masks or whatever the hot issue is; the government has spoken, and we’re all supposed to just act like little sheep and obey,” he said.

The government’s actions have violated the First Amendment, he said.

Mr. Eastman said he believes his legal challenge is a calling to push back against this oppression and threat to self-governance and freedom, which he said is part of a spiritual and cultural war happening in the United States.

“This country is on the precipice of losing what we’ve had,” he said. “I’m on the ramparts. I’ve been cast at the forefront of this battle. ... It’s one of the greatest honors of my life.”

All of his life choices and experiences have equipped him to confront this battle.

“Anybody of faith would be remiss in not recognizing the hand of providence in that. I do think it’s a spiritual battle,” he said.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Re: ET: Eastman still in the fight-- strong piece
« Reply #429 on: May 12, 2024, 05:44:16 AM »
Yes, strong piece.  Persecuting good people.  Murderers get representation but Republicans don't.

"Americans used to go to a local polling place such as a neighborhood community room at the library or the local church to vote, ...."

  - There were problems then but far fewer.

One idea to end mail voting, defund the usps.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2024, 02:42:53 PM by DougMacG »


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Lawfare Tables Turning?
« Reply #430 on: May 12, 2024, 12:12:51 PM »
Will Judge Cannon hold Jack Smith to the sorts of standards Smith is seeking to hold Trump to?

Judge Cannon Puts Jack Smith on Trial
While vacating Donald Trump's trial date, Cannon set an aggressive hearing schedule over the next several weeks that will turn the tables on Smith and the Department of Justice.

MAY 10, 2024

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon may have just indefinitely postponed Donald Trump’s espionage and obstruction trial but that doesn’t mean her federal courtroom in Fort Pierce, Florida will lie dormant over the next few months.

Declassified with Julie Kelly is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In officially vacating the existing May 20 trial date—an impossibility considering the defendant will be in a Manhattan courtroom for the foreseeable future—Cannon declined to set another date, calling it “imprudent” at this stage of the process. She noted a “myriad” of unresolved matters in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 42-count indictment against the former president and his two co-defendants, Mar-a-Lago employees Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Olivera, for willfully retaining national defense information and attempting to impede the government’s investigation.

Cannon, however, did schedule a number of proceedings that could be considered a way to put the Department of Justice on trial. In a stunning turn of events, Cannon, appointed by Donald Trump in 2020, is poised to make Smith a defendant of sorts.

Over the next several weeks, prosecutors will be forced to publicly counter defense motions that accuse the DOJ of selective and vindictive prosecution; insist the appointment of Smith is illegal; and claim that several parties, including Joe Biden’s White House, colluded behind the scenes as early as May 2021 to concoct the unprecedented case.

Her hearing schedule represents a broader spilling of bad blood between Cannon and the DOJ dating back to September 2022, when Cannon took the courageous step of appointing a special master, or third party, to vet the all of the evidence seized by the FBI during the armed raid of Mar-a-Lago the month before.

Noting at the time the prosecution’s suspected leaks to the news media and the mishandling of evidence in the early stages of the investigation—in addition to what she called the need for “public trust” in the case—Cannon granted Trump’s request for the special master.

Although the 11th Circuit Court overturned her order a few months later on grounds she did not have proper jurisdiction, Cannon now is exonerated amid disclosures by Smith in a May 3 brief that evidence has been mishandled and key documents possibly misplaced. “[There] are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans (taken right after the raid),” Smith’s team revealed, referring to 34 boxes taken from Mar-a-Lago.

Smith also revealed that in some instances, sheets of paper that FBI investigators used to replace classified records within a box do not match. “In many but not all instances, the FBI was able to determine which document with classification markings corresponded to a particular placeholder sheet,” Smith wrote.

In other words, the government officials prosecuting Trump with mishandling top-secret files--mishandled top-secret files.

Trump Off the Hook for Now, Smith Goes on Defense

Even more problematic is Smith’s confession that his lead prosecutor, Jay Bratt, misrepresented to Cannon the existing condition of the boxes. During an April hearing, Cannon directly asked Bratt, “are the boxes in their original, intact form as seized?” Bratt replied that they were with “the exception that the classified documents have been removed and placeholders have been put in the documents.”

Smith admitted in a footnote that Bratt’s statement was “inconsistent” with the facts, which could prompt Trump’s counsel to seek a contempt of court charge.

But that might be the least of Smith’s concerns right now. Cannon’s aggressive hearing schedule will put Smith and the entire Justice Department on the hot seat—and the timing could not be worse; with the other criminal trials against Trump in Washington and Fulton County imploding, all eyes are focused on southern Florida.

A bit of background before turning to the pending schedule. After months of what can only be described as harassment by the National Archives, including Obama-appointed archivist David Ferriero, throughout 2021 to demand the return of alleged government records, Trump gave 15 boxes of papers to the archives in January 2022.

Archive officials immediately claimed they found material with “classified markings” among the boxes’ contents. That prompted for the first time ever the archives sending a criminal referral to the DOJ in February 2022. Smith indicted Trump and Nauta in June 2023; the following month, Smith added De Olivera and additional charges in a superseding indictment.

But defense attorneys now have evidence that disputes Smith’s course of events and the number of officials involved in the case. In January, the defense filed a motion asking Cannon to consider numerous agencies including the archives, the Biden White House, top DOJ officials, and the FBI as part of the prosecution team.

“New evidence, obtained via requests pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act reveals that politically motivated operatives in the Biden Administration and the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) began this crusade against President Trump in 2021,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “The FOIA releases, coupled with other evidence…reflect close participation in the investigation by NARA and Biden Administration components such as the White House Counsel’s Office, as well as senior officials at DOJ and FBI. These revelations are disturbing but not surprising.”

Hundreds of pages of exhibits show emails and meetings between archive officials and Biden’s general counsel’s office throughout the second half of 2021. Gary Stern, the archives general counsel, further disclosed in an August 2021 email that he had had “informal” talks with unidentified DOJ officials to seek advice on how to prepare a criminal referral against Trump for refusing to turn over government records.

Smith, naturally, denies the allegations, claiming defense attorneys were advancing “speculative, unsupported, and false theories of political bias and animus.”

Both sides will have the chance to duke it out next month.

Over the course of three days during the last week of June, per Cannon’s new schedule, Smith and the defense will participate in an extended hearing to debate evidence of collusion. Not only do the proceedings pose a risk to Smith’s case based on prior pleadings to the court but proof of correspondence and meetings contradicts public claims by Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland that the investigation was independent of the White House.

First Public Vetting of Smith’s Potentially Illegal Appointment

Smith also will have to defend himself before the court during a June 21 hearing related to the potential unlawfulness of his appointment as special counsel. Citing an amicus brief filed by former Attorney General Edwin Meese before the Supreme Court earlier this year—Meese said that “Jack Smith does not have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution [because] those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices”—Trump also argues that “Jack Smith lacks the authority to prosecute this action.”

The controversy represents dicey territory for Smith; in fact, during oral arguments at SCOTUS last month on the question of presidential immunity, Justice Clarence Thomas asked Trump’s attorney whether they “challenge[d] the appointment of special counsel” in the matter, signaling the court may consider the amici brief in its final decision.

Smith has not yet responded to the hearing timetable; his media allies, however, continue to demand Cannon’s recusal.

But both Smith and his allies know Cannon has the upper hand. And it appears, at least for the time being, she plans to use it as a hammer against the DOJ.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Cohen Subject of Long Game Orchestration
« Reply #431 on: May 15, 2024, 02:39:39 PM »
Some interesting conjecture re Cohen’s guilty pleas re campaign finance charges. Testimony in the Trump trial reveals those charges are silly, so why did Cohen plea to them, and why was his sentence so much less than others charged with similar crimes? Could a deal have been struck to play along, accept the charges so they appear to be carved in stone in advance of Trump being charged with the same?

Conspiracy theory stuff, and I find PJ Media frequently seems to post knee-jerk stuff making points opposite of what if floating around the “Progressive” blogosphere, though author Victoria Taft often breaks that mold and connects interesting dots:


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #432 on: May 15, 2024, 02:44:59 PM »
That is the way I remember it!

IIRC Cohen's lawyer was Hillary crony Lanie Davis.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile

The Trial Against Trump Will Throw the Election into Chaos
The former president has been dragged into court on a flimsy charge that rests on the testimony of a convicted liar.

By Eli Lake

May 15, 2024

When Donald Trump was indicted last year by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg, I was skeptical. The indictment alleged that the 45th president had falsified payments to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, by classifying them as legal fees when in fact it was reimbursement for hush money to the porn star known as Stormy Daniels.

As the trial has unfolded over the past two months, Daniels has testified that Trump had sex with her at Lake Tahoe in 2006 and didn’t wear a condom or display much sexual endurance. Cohen testified that he dutifully made the payments to Daniels on Trump’s behalf because he was “knee-deep in the cult of Trump.” Former senior Trump aide Hope Hicks has testified to the lengths the 2016 campaign and Trump White House went to suppress stories of the former president’s past sexual scandals.

The resistance commentariat insists that Trump is going down. Republican Never Trump lawyer George Conway writes in The Atlantic that Bragg’s case is “kind of perfect.” MSNBC host and former Republican operative Nicole Wallace assures viewers that Trump’s lawyers “bombed” their cross-examination of Cohen. Former Justice Department official Andrew Weissman praises Bragg’s “crackerjack team of experienced attorneys” for building an airtight case.

But missing from this wall-to-wall coverage is any mention of the underlying crime that Trump falsified business records to advance his campaign. And that is a fatal flaw in the case, because New York law stipulates that falsifying business records can only be charged as felonies (as Bragg has done) if it’s done to further another crime. Trump has not been charged with another crime, though Bragg has floated the theory that the business records were falsified to deprive 2016 voters of information about his tryst with Daniels.

There are other flaws as well. Robert Costello, one of the lawyers who worked closely with Cohen at the U.S. Attorney’s Office at the Southern District of New York, testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that his old office declined to prosecute the hush money case against Trump because Cohen was “totally unworthy of belief.”

Cohen is Bragg’s star witness. And according to Costello, Cohen told the U.S. attorney’s office in 2018 that the “payment to Daniels was his own idea, designed to try and get him back into the inner circle of Trump people in Washington.”

That is damning testimony from a far more credible source than Cohen, who pleaded guilty in 2018 to lying to Congress and served two and a half years in prison.

It’s still quite possible that the Manhattan jury will convict Trump on the 34 felony charges Bragg has brought. But there is no chance the conviction will withstand appeal, particularly given that it relies so heavily on Cohen’s testimony.

At best the anti-Trump “resistance” will win a Pyrrhic victory. They may get their headline: “Trump Convicted in Hush Money Trial.” But the charge will not stick.

In the meantime, Alvin Bragg has thrown the 2024 election into chaos by dragging the presumptive Republican presidential nominee into court to defend himself against an untested legal theory premised on the testimony of a convicted liar.

Trump already has proven that he will not recognize the results of elections that he doesn’t win. Bragg’s prosecution gives Trump and his supporters a ready-made excuse not to accept the results of the 2024 election should President Joe Biden prevail.

The hush money trial also gives permission and incentive to ambitious Republican prosecutors to repay Democrats in kind. Our legal system will soon be dominated by the whims of those in power as opposed to the rule of law.

Costello on Wednesday summed up the dangers of Bragg’s folly. “In the Trump case, they are seeking a conviction by any means necessary,” he said. “They do not care if it is overturned on appeal because that will likely not happen until after the election. In the meantime, they will have effectively interfered with the 2024 presidential election and perhaps influenced some voters because of an ill-gotten conviction.”

In other words, Alvin Bragg is destroying our democratic system in order to save it.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Politics by Lawfare, Bogus Executive Privilege assertion
« Reply #435 on: May 17, 2024, 05:36:46 AM »
Isn't this admission that his I-don't-recall testimony won't hold up to public scrutiny?

We have the transcript but can't listen for credibility in his voice?  (Yes we can.)  He waived Exe. Priv. when they released the transcript. 

Among the things he couldn't remember was when he was Vice President.  A tape of that is more damaging than written words.

(Did Trump have privilege when the perfect Ukraine call was released?  WHen the Georgia find-the-votes call?  He was POTUS then.)

Testimony that led the prosecutor Hur to conclude Biden was too old and senile to be held accountable, was for the same crime his opponent is charged with multiple felonies and real prison time for.  And we can't hear it?

"The privilege claim is bogus on two grounds. First, once a President waives a privilege right, it can’t be reclaimed. Mr. Biden conceded that the interview wasn’t privileged, and there’s no legal basis to say that a recording is different from a transcript.

Even if Mr. Biden had first claimed privilege over the interview, that wouldn’t pass legal muster because the interview subject didn’t concern his presidential duties or White House deliberations. It concerned his handling of documents while in the Senate, as Vice President, or as a private citizen.

Mr. Siskel’s claim that the goal is to protect the Justice Department’s “law enforcement investigations” also doesn’t work. Such a claim of law-enforcement privilege typically attends to a continuing investigation, but Mr. Hur’s work is complete. He has filed his report and closed up shop.

Mr. Siskel complains in his letter that the transcript should be sufficient and the “absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal—to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes.” No doubt partisanship is at play, as it was for Democrats on Capitol Hill against Mr. Trump.

But Republicans want the audio to judge the tenor and credibility of Mr. Biden’s responses and Mr. Hur’s conclusion that the President’s faulty memory was cause not to bring an indictment in the case. The White House claim of privilege over the recordings isn’t intended to protect executive power. It’s intended to avoid presidential embarrassment.

That’s a political goal, not a legitimate legal justification."
« Last Edit: May 17, 2024, 11:23:15 AM by DougMacG »


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
First we Sue all the (Republican) Lawyers
« Reply #436 on: May 20, 2024, 09:18:42 AM »
I was aware this is occurring here or there, but had no idea it was so systematized an effort. Nut graph: Soros DAs and fellow traverlers are IDing effective Republican lawyers and embroiling them in sundry accusations and resultant legal drama. Not only does this limit the amount of Republican legal octane avaialbe in the 2024 election, but allows the MSM to ballyhoo "Republican lawyer xyz was accused today of abc" stories for the minimally informed to lap up:


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #437 on: May 20, 2024, 03:58:03 PM »
Twitter is not posting for me, but I think myself sufficiently informed as to the point to heartily agree.  Witness e.g. what they have done to John Eastman.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #438 on: May 21, 2024, 06:04:39 AM »
Twitter is not posting for me, but I think myself sufficiently informed as to the point to heartily agree.  Witness e.g. what they have done to John Eastman.

Here's a quick, greasy cut and paste:

LAWFARE: Will there be any Republican Lawyers Left to Ensure Election Integrity in November?
Democrats have aggressively targeted over 400 Republican lawyers and politicians with criminal charges, civil lawsuits, and disbarment proceedings ahead of the upcoming presidential election. They have successfully jailed Peter Navarro, with Steve Bannon expected to join him shortly. In multiple states, Democrats have pursued criminal charges against dozens of Republican lawyers and politicians, including:
Georgia: 19 Republicans arrested and charged
Arizona: 18 Republicans arrested and charged
Michigan: 16 Republicans arrested and charged
Nevada: 6 Republicans arrested and charged
Pennsylvania & Wisconsin: Are still conducting criminal investigations into as many as 30 Republicans who have yet to be charged
In addition to these criminal trials, Democrats are pursuing numerous efforts to have Republican lawyers disbarred. The Soros-backed 65 Project has filed disbarment proceedings against more than 100 Republican lawyers, which prevent many of these lawyers from working until the proceedings are concluded. In almost every case, the charges lack merit, but they have three primary impacts: a chilling effect that discourages other Republican lawyers and politicians from helping Trump, a financial drain on the resources of Republicans who might otherwise use their funds to help elect Trump, and a time drain that physically keeps them busy during the campaign.
This weekend, Arizona Democrats even crashed Rudy Giuliani's 80th birthday party to serve him with a criminal indictment. One day earlier, the same Democrats arrested John Eastman, President Trump's former attorney. His indictment and arrest are shocking because he was never involved with any litigation or hearings in Arizona and never talked to anyone there during or after the election. Additionally, he's facing disbarment in California after a judge recommended his removal as a lawyer.
Make no mistake, the Democrats are conducting a well-funded, well-organized effort to remove as many Republicans as possible from the November election process. Their goal is to prevent Republicans from ensuring the integrity of the election and protecting the sanctity of your vote. This is a war on the 6th Amendment—everyone, including President Trump and Republican candidates, deserves the right to legal representation. Democrats are working overtime to ensure that doesn’t happen in November.
UPDATE: Some people have asked for some details about the people who have been targeted. Here is a partial list:
Donald Trump - Former President
Rudy Giuliani - Former New York Mayor and Trump attorney
Mark Meadows - Former White House Chief of Staff
John Eastman - Conservative lawyer, former dean of Chapman University Law School
Kenneth Chesebro - Lawyer involved in election manipulation plans
Sidney Powell - Attorney involved in hiring forensic experts for voting system breaches
Jeffrey Clark - Former DOJ official
Jenna Ellis - Trump lawyer
David Shafer - Former chairman of the Georgia Republican Party
Shawn Still - Georgia state senator
Harrison Floyd - Leader of "Black Voices for Trump"
Trevian Kutti - Publicist, former associate of Kanye West
Robert Cheeley - Georgia trial lawyer
Mike Roman - Trump campaign official
Stephen Lee - Lutheran pastor
Ray Smith - Lawyer who represented the Trump campaign in Georgia
Scott Hall - Bail bondsman involved in the Coffee County voting system breach
Cathy Latham - Former Coffee County GOP chair and fake elector
Misty Hampton - Former Coffee County elections supervisor involved in the voting system breach
Rudy Giuliani - Former Trump attorney, involved in promoting false claims of election fraud.
Mark Meadows - Former White House Chief of Staff.
John Eastman - Lawyer who devised legal strategies to overturn the election.
Christina Bobb - Attorney associated with Rudy Giuliani and a Republican National Committee official.
Jenna Ellis - Lawyer who worked with Giuliani.
Boris Epshteyn - 2020 Trump campaign aide.
Mike Roman - Director of Election Day operations for the Trump campaign.
Tyler Bowyer - Republican National Committee member and COO of Turning Point Action.
Nancy Cottle - Chair of the Arizona Republican Presidential Electors.
Jake Hoffman - Arizona state senator.
Anthony Kern - Arizona state senator.
James Lamon - 2022 U.S. Senate candidate and chair of Depcom Power.
Robert Montgomery - Former Cochise County Republican Committee chair.
Samuel Moorhead - Former Gila County Republican Party head.
Loraine Pellegrino - Secretary of the Arizona Republican fake presidential electors.
Gregory Safsten - Former Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party.
Kelli Ward - Former Arizona Republican Party chair and former state senator.
Michael Ward - Republican activist and husband of Kelli Ward.
Kathy Berden - Michigan Republican National Committee member.
William (Hank) Choate - Former chair of the Jackson County Republican Party.
Amy Facchinello - Trustee on the Grand Blanc Board of Education.
Clifford Frost - GOP activist from Warren.
Meshawn Maddock - Former co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party.
Marian Sheridan - Grassroots vice chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party.
Kent Vanderwood - Mayor of Wyoming, Michigan.
Stanley Grot - Shelby Township clerk.
Rose Rook - GOP activist from Paw Paw.
John Haggard - Former GOP candidate for state representative.
Mari-Ann Henry - GOP activist from Brighton.
Timothy King - GOP activist from Ypsilanti.
James Renner - GOP activist from Lansing.
Mayra Rodriguez - GOP activist from Grosse Pointe Farms.
Ken Thompson - GOP activist from Orleans.
Michele Lundgren - GOP activist from Detroit.
Michael McDonald - Chair of the Nevada Republican Party.
Jim DeGraffenreid - Nevada GOP national committeeman.
Jesse Law - Chair of the Clark County Republican Party.
Eileen Rice - GOP activist.
Durward James Hindle III - GOP activist.
Shawn Meehan - GOP activist.
Disbarment (65 Project):
John Eastman
Rudy Giuliani
Sidney Powell
Jenna Ellis
Cleta Mitchell
Stefan Passantino
Michael McDonald
Jim DeGraffenreid
Jesse Law
Emily Newman
Kurt Olsen
William Olson
Lynn Fitch (Mississippi Attorney General)
Steven Marshall (Alabama Attorney General)
Patrick Morrisey (West Virginia Attorney General)
Leslie Rutledge (Arkansas Attorney General)
Derek Schmidt (Kansas Attorney General)
Eric Schmitt (Missouri Attorney General)
Tim Fox (Former Montana Attorney General)
Sean Reyes (Utah Attorney General)
Herbert Slatery (Former Tennessee Attorney General)
Jeff Landry (Louisiana Attorney General)
Curtis Hill (Former Indiana Attorney General)
Mike Hunter (Oklahoma Attorney General)
Douglas Peterson (Nebraska Attorney General)
Ashley Moody (Florida Attorney General)
Alan Wilson (South Carolina Attorney General)
Kevin Koons
William Bock
Jeffrey Gallant
Daniel Eastman
Michael Dean
Robert Citak
James Knauer
Richard Coleson
Courtney Milbank
Howard Kleinhendler
Brandon Johnson
Melana Siebert
Julia Haller
James Bopp
Kenneth Klukowski
Kenneth Chesebro
Stefanie Lynn Junttila Esq. (MI) - Disbarment Letter12
Gregory Rohl Esq. (MI) - Disbarment Letter13
Scott Hagerstrom Esq. (MI) - Disbarment Letter14
Julia Z. Haller Esq. (DC)
Brandon Johnson Esq. (DC)
Lin Wood Esq. (GA)
Howard Kleinhendler Esq. (NY)
Emily Newman Esq. (VA)
Sidney Powell Esq. (TX)
Kurt Olsen Esq. (MD) - Disbarment Letter16
William Olson Esq. (VA) - Disbarment Letter17
John Eastman Esq. (DC) - Disbarment Letter18
Kenneth Klukowski Esq. (DC) - Disbarment Letter19
Kenneth Chesebro Esq. (NY) - Disbarment Letter20
Jenna Ellis Esq. (PA & CO) - Disbarment Letter21
Linda Kerns Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter22
Bruce Marks Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter23
James Bopp Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter24
Ronald Hicks Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter25
Carolyn B. McGee Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter26
Anita Milanovich Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter27
Marc Scaringi Esq. (PA)- Disbarment Letter28
Brian Caffrey Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter29
Walter Zimolong Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter30
Senator Ted Cruz Esq. (TX) - Disbarment Letter31
Cleta Mitchell Esq. (DC) - Disbarment Letter32
Joseph diGenova Esq. (DC) - Disbarment Letter33
Boris Epshteyn Esq. (NY) - Disbarment Letter34
Paul Davis Esq. (TX) - Disbarment Letter35
William Calhoun Esq. (GA) - Disbarment Letter36
James Troupis Esq. (WI) - Disbarment Letter37
There are many more... I've written about the effort in multiple places:


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18598
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #439 on: May 21, 2024, 06:37:02 AM »
Unless he already discussed this , this topic would make for an informative show for Mark Levin.
Did anyone copy him ?

He could have Dershowitz on and they take a look at this through a legal political and Constitutional lens.
I find both teach me things few others do.


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #440 on: May 21, 2024, 10:58:22 AM »
Thank you.