Author Topic: Politics by Lawfare, Bureaufare, and the Law of War  (Read 73294 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Alan Dersh and Mark Garagos on Meghan Kelly
« Reply #450 on: June 01, 2024, 06:10:23 AM »
Very interesting discussion.
Recommend listen from 30 minute mark to 1:02 time
more objective legal analysis
prior and post part of podcast also ok but a bit not anything we haven/t already heard on the cable pundits:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trump-convicted-now-what-expert-legal-analysis-with/id1532976305?i=1000657450717

My favorite part is Meghan telling Dersh to "be quiet"

Meghan in my opinion is correct and Dersh wrong about how we proceed from here.
I agree with her we need to take the battle right to the Leftists and not let them get away with this.
Do to them as they do to us!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
second post prediction
« Reply #451 on: June 01, 2024, 06:14:24 AM »
I don't agree with most of the lawyers

I predict Trump will either get jail time OR minimally house arrest.

The LEFT has gone this far to distort the rules to "get him"
so why would they not finish the job and sentence him to prison or at the very least house arrest.

We need to stop assuming they will be reasonable when by now it is obvious they will stop at nothing to keep him out of November.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #452 on: June 01, 2024, 10:55:30 PM »
on thinking about it more
the DNC will let Merchan know what sentence to give DJT (in some private or covert way)
based on what polling or other data shows would help them in the polls and election most

If jail time serves to decrease his numbers he will get jail .
if jail time boosts his support he will get something else

anyone who thinks, and  any lawyers, who come out and tell us that Merchan is not influenced by what the DNC wants
should re enroll in  kindergarten as far as I am concerned.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2024, 09:01:41 AM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Manufactured Felonies
« Reply #453 on: June 02, 2024, 07:51:22 AM »
"Convicted felon" is a pretty strong message to the low information voter, apparently their target market.

To the more sophisticated voter they might notice with the Democrats that their inner-Putin is showing.

Assuming this partisan judge won't order prison time for bookkeeping errors, Trump will be  put under house arrest in Mar-A-Lago, unable to campaign and do rallies in the month of the first debate, exactly as planned and timed. If that is the case, he would not even be able to attend the first debate. Or do they give him a work release to go out and visit the voters across the country, making the sentence meaningless and the charges a joke.

In any event, all the attention goes to the judge. This is what he wanted. But HE (the judge)  happens to be reason number one for overturn on appeal.

Of course the media is seeking out potential, violent reactions of a rogue Trump supporter or two to capture the moment and prove the extremism, when the extremism just happened under our new nose in a New York courtroom.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2024, 07:57:39 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #454 on: June 02, 2024, 09:11:49 AM »
"Of course the media is seeking out potential, violent reactions of a rogue Trump supporter or two to capture the moment and prove the extremism, when the extremism just happened under our new nose in a New York courtroom."

They try to distort Democracy in their favor for power.
They push us to extremes with their deceit, manipulation of laws, fake news, rigging elections, disparaging anyone who disagrees with them including Supreme Court Justices, and training our young with unwanted Woke
AND

then when finally push comes to shove a Republican reacts in a more "extreme" defensive way since that is the last recourse left, the MSM does as you say:

claim MAGA is a threat to Democracy!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
3rd post today
« Reply #455 on: June 02, 2024, 11:06:55 AM »
Genius Dersh
60 yrs experience
whom Geragos calls the premier appellate lawyer extraordinaire gives class on his analysis of the trial.
He believes that Trump lawyers made multiple mistakes making an appeal more difficult   :-o:

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2024/06/01/dershowitz-trumps-even-more-screwed-than-he-thinks-n4929526



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
"Threat to Democracy" or Projection??
« Reply #456 on: June 02, 2024, 07:02:35 PM »
Trump is a "threat to democracy", they say,.  Since we don't have a "democracy", it means they heard and repeated a prepared talking point: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aBo3xnMecoU

We have a constitutional republic, a representative from of government   But if you give them the benefit of the doubt, "democracy" symbolizes having consensual government with free and fair elections, not authoritarianism.

Threats to 'democracy' include things like removing opponents from the ballot, 'ballot harvesting', mail in voting replacing in person voting with absentee vote exceptions. Threat to democracy is letting illegals in and letting them vote.  Threat to democracy is when you block your opponents from the right to choose their own candidate, remove from ballot without due process, prosecute opponents for manufactured crimes.

Which side is the threat??

While we're at it, which side is authoritarian?  Which side wants government control of something as personal as healthcare?  Democrats.  Control of education, anti-choice?  Democrats.  They took control of the energy sector and not just about pollution.  Democrats.  Pipelines don't pollute; they are ten time safer and cleaner than the alternatives, trucks and trains.

They took control of the transportation sector, Democrats, announced to us the end of gasoline powered cars, making laws and decisions for us that are permanent, not voted on, just handed down to us, and not just for their term in office. They make edicts irreversible, Democrats.

And they took control of housing in America, government power instituted by Democrats, with freedom and free markets disappearing, Democrats.  Don't get me started on that.

Reasible regulation is one thing but government control of industry is fascism.

So speaking of projection, what do Democrats do, they call us the fascists. And a threat to democracy.  Go figure.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2024, 08:45:49 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
people are either reading the forum
« Reply #457 on: June 02, 2024, 08:06:40 PM »
or all we conservatives think alike.  I posted yesterday:

*The LEFT has gone this far to distort the rules to "get him"
so why would they not finish the job and sentence him to prison or at the very least house arrest.*

From PJ media today:

" Why wouldn't Judge Juan Merchan finish the job and add to the left's glee....."

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2024/06/02/of-course-theyll-try-to-put-trump-in-jail-n4929543

If we do get power it would not be revenge or simple retribution to go after the judges, the prosecutors and the others who did this to Trump (and us).

It would be JUSTICE.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #460 on: June 05, 2024, 01:13:07 PM »
I wonder what the inside polling shows

if trump is sent to jail vs house arrest

or less likely a fine etc.

how will that affect the race.

I am near certain that is the LEFT thinking behind the scenes and Merchan's communications with Dem operative lawyers

and ? communicado with Larry Lib - the other man in black at all times.

except this asshole can't sing.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Antidote for NY Lawfare?
« Reply #461 on: June 06, 2024, 06:31:39 PM »
I claim no legal expertise, but this has the ring of an apt way forward for the Trump team:

Yale Law Professor Has Brilliant Plan for Trump Legal Team to Overturn 'Guilty' Verdict Before the Election

"Could Trump actually be put in jail? You bet he could."

"Each count of this 34 count indictment has a maximum penalty attached to it of four years. Well, that's four times 34. That's a maximum sentence, prison sentence of 136 years."

"Will he do that? Of course not. He won't. But could he sentence him to some incarceration? Yes, he could. Will he? Nobody knows."

Yale Law Professor Jeb Rubenfield, who teaches Advanced Constitutional Law, counseled the Trump legal team on a course of action that could potentially see his 'guilty' verdict overturned before the 2024 election.

"Now, when is sentencing scheduled for? Well, Judge Merchan has set it for July 11th."

"Will something happen between then and now? Yes. Trump's team will ask for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict."

"They'll ask for Judge Merchan to throw out the jury's verdict and find Trump innocent despite the verdict, and Judge Merchan will turn that down."

"Then there will be arguments about what the sentence should be briefing on both sides, possibly even a hearing. Then on July 11th, sentencing will be announced. And at that point, that triggers the Trump team's right to appeal."

"To what court would they appeal? Well, they would appeal to New York's appellate level court... And after the appellate court rules, then the case could go up to New York's highest court, which is actually called the Court of Appeals... And after that, the case could go up to the Supreme Court."

"And ultimately it might well go to the Supreme Court where finally we will have a definitive, conclusive ruling on whether the conviction was constitutional or not."

Professor Rubenfield identified a massive, glaring problem with this legal appeals process.

"Of course that would take years, and that's a problem here. Why is it a problem? It's a problem because the election will have taken place and if this conviction is unlawful and unconstitutional, it could have an effect on that election."

"There are surveys, many polls in which a substantial number of American voters say they will not vote for Trump if he is convicted of a felony. Many independents say that, many Republicans even say that. If that's true, an unlawful conviction in this case could interfere with and in fact decide the outcome of the next election of the next President of the United States"

"Even if the conviction were reversed on appeal years later, that effect could not be undone in legal terms. That's called IRREPARABLE HARM. The irreparable harm, once again, is that a 'convicted felon' could affect the election, could decide the election."

"And if so, then District Attorney Bragg and Judge Merchan will have UNLAWFULLY INTERFERED with the election and decided the outcome of the next election through unconstitutional means. And no years long appeal could have any effect on that."

This is the critical point that Professor Rubenfield makes: There is another way.

"Well, is that where we are? So are we stuck with that possibility? Well, believe it or not, there is one other avenue that the Trump lawyers could pursue. They could sue in federal court and ask for an emergency temporary restraining order."

"Restraining order of what? Well, let me tell you something that you might not know. You've probably been reading in the press if you've been reading about this case. The Trump is already a "convicted felon." The jury has convicted him. He's a "convicted felon."

"Well, guess what? THAT'S NOT TRUE."

"You're not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict. You're not convicted unless the judge enters a judgment of guilt against you. The judge still has the power, as I told you before, to throw out that verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal. You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt."

"Now in New York, it's very likely that Judge Merchan will enter that judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issued sentencing. That'd be July 11th."

"So what would this federal case be about in this federal action? Trump would sue District Attorney Bragg and other state actors and ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order halting Judge Merchan from entering that judgment of guilt until the federal courts have had an opportunity to review and rule on the serious constitutional arguments that exist here."

"Let me tell you why I think that might be a very important thing to happen. Because going after, criminally, a former president of the United States and somebody who is running for president now, that's a VERY BAD LOOK for this country."

"It's an especially bad look when the folks bring in the case and the judge deciding it are members of the opposing political party. And it's an even worse look when the crime is so unclear that the state is hiding the ball about what the actual charges are right up through the trial and indeed into the trial."

"And even now, we don't know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of. If you're going to go after a former president and somebody who's running for president now the poll leading candidate, if you're a member of the other party and you're going to do that, YOU BETTER HAVE THE GOODS. You better not be pursuing some novel legal theory where you have to hide the ball. It's not even clear what the charges are."

"That could be a very dangerous precedent for this country. A very bad and dangerous precedent."

"That's why it's so important for a federal court to review the constitutionality of this prosecution and decide, was it constitutional, was it not?"

"The only way to achieve that before the election takes place is for the Trump team to file an action in federal court and ask the federal court to temporarily hold off the entry of the judgment of guilt until the federal courts and maybe the Supreme Court itself can on an emergency basis adjudicate the likelihood of success of these constitutional arguments."

"If that doesn't happen, then that IRREPARABLE HARM danger that I mentioned before, well that's where we are."

"But if it does happen, the nation could get a ruling from the federal courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, before the election takes place."

"Maybe that's what the nation needs and maybe that's what the law requires here. So if I were Trump's lawyer, that's probably what I would do."

https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1798859839395013095?s=12

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #462 on: June 06, 2024, 06:53:02 PM »
Intriguing.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Not a lawyer & don’t play one on TV, but this would seem to intimate the fix was in. Mistrial declared? In the immortal words paraphrased from the final line of Chinatown, “Forge it Jake, it’s New York City.”

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1799178304282378471?s=61



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
NY Ct. of Appeals blows off Trump
« Reply #466 on: June 19, 2024, 11:33:24 AM »
The confusingly named Court of Appeals, is actually NY's highest court.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gag-order-appeal-new-york-court-of-appeals/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
second post
« Reply #468 on: June 21, 2024, 02:53:02 PM »
Ty Cobb

who worked with Trump team in past

now comes out and bashed Judge for favorable rulings for Trump and team:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-trump-lawyer-raises-red-flag-on-aileen-cannon-partisan-prima-donna/ar-BB1oCtm2?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=aebbdcd140244b96b0ef130556c9daea&ei=13

I don't know is this un ethical?

prick goes on CNN with his idiotic santa claus look to bash a former client.

he must be needing to enhance his cocktail party invites.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Dem lawyers want court to I guess remove Judge Cannon
« Reply #469 on: June 21, 2024, 03:21:59 PM »
"I thought only a judge can recuse self "

  - I think that rule is for the US Supreme Court - because no one is above them.  For just a regular federal judge, I don't know.  If an appeals court thinks the judge should have recused or made mistakes in the case, I suppose they can overrule or declare a mis-trial.
-----------
How to remove a federal judge:
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/438_q54sjnwz.pdf

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Another sniviling lawyer
« Reply #470 on: June 21, 2024, 03:24:35 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/after-i-lost-the-election-legal-expert-says-new-trump-recording-could-be-admissible-evidence/ar-BB1oEEZb?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=20a55908a610439e958c77083081d478&ei=15

""This statement made on tape and on the record by Mr. Trump would be admissible in evidence against him on the issue of his corrupt intent in the four Smith indictments in DC that SCOTUS is inexcusably keeping on hold in United States v. Trump," Laurence Tribe, a law professor at Harvard University, posted on X."

Any argument this little shit can dream up works just fine for him
Like Dershowitz said who has known him for nearly 5 decades:

he always interprets the Constitution in ways that is good for the Dem party [no matter what]

Oh the hysterical democrat lawyers to flood the airways this weekend ......


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
WSJ: Taking down Judge Aileen Cannon
« Reply #471 on: June 25, 2024, 04:43:37 AM »


Taking Down Judge Aileen Cannon
Imagine the praise if she deferred to Jack Smith’s bid for a pre-election conviction in the Trump classified-documents trial.
William McGurn
June 24, 2024 5:15 pm ET


Ever notice how weaselly the smart set can be when targeting someone for public shame? On Thursday the New York Times served up a fresh example with an article headlined “Judge in Trump Documents Case Rejected Suggestions to Step Aside.”

The judge is Aileen Cannon, a Donald Trump appointee now hearing the former president’s classified-documents case in the Southern District of Florida. Ostensibly the article is about two colleagues on the federal bench who advised her to decline the case in favor of someone with more experience.


Judge Aileen Cannon, July 21, 2023. PHOTO: HANDOUT/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
But here’s the key sentence: “As Judge Cannon’s handling of the case has come under intensifying scrutiny, her critics have suggested that she could be in over her head, in the tank for Mr. Trump—or both.”

Nowhere in the piece is anyone quoted, even anonymously, that she is in the tank for Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump may be crude but at least when he goes after a judge there’s no hiding behind anonymity. During his trial in New York, he appeared on camera each day denouncing Judge Juan Merchan variously as “corrupt,” “highly conflicted” and “the worst judge in history.”

The vilification of Judge Cannon is polite society’s version. It’s similar to the statement by 51 former intelligence operatives two weeks before the 2020 election that Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Their statement was sprinkled with caveats that didn’t matter because its only job was to give Joe Biden something to get him through the last crucial days of the election.

The Times piece is littered with allusions to Judge Cannon’s alleged unfitness: her “scant trial experience,” the “unusual favor” she’s shown Mr. Trump, the “increasing criticism of how she has gone on to handle the case,” her “hostility to prosectors,” and the way one of her rulings was “shocking legal experts along ideological lines.” You’d hardly know that the judge has also ruled against Mr. Trump, notably in his bid to have the case dismissed.

The Times story comes in the wake of an order by Chief Judge William Pryor of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that cited an “orchestrated campaign” of more than 1,000 complaints to the court to have Judge Cannon forced from the case. Many of the complaints say she had an “improper motive” for delaying the trial. But Judge Pryor said “the allegations are speculative and unsupported by any evidence.”

The Times article also appeared on the eve of oral arguments about the constitutionality of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel. Mr. Trump’s defense contends that his appointment was unconstitutional because Attorney General Merrick Garland has no statutory authority to bestow on a private citizen these extraordinary prosecutorial powers.

READ MORE MAIN STREET
No More Special CounselsJune 17, 2024
The Sliming of Byron DonaldsJune 10, 2024
That argument may be a long shot, but it has been raised by serious figures: former Attorneys General Ed Meese and Mike Mukasey to name two. Judge Cannon’s critics don’t like it, not only because they worry how she might rule, but because even hearing the argument is another delay that threatens to put Mr. Trump’s trial off until after the election.

As much as it might upset the Times, Judge Cannon is right to resolve these issues before the trial begins. The only reason to rush is that Mr. Smith wants his case tried before the election. Given that Mr. Smith was once rebuked 8-0 by the Supreme Court for his “boundless interpretation” of the federal bribery statutes he used to go after former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, you might think a little prudence is in order.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy further points out that Mr. Smith has only himself to blame for any delay. Had he simply charged Mr. Trump with obstruction, many of the issues now slowing down his case wouldn’t be a problem. But because Mr. Smith added 32 classified-information counts under the Espionage Act, he triggered the Classified Information Procedures Act—and its time-consuming process for deciding what and how classified information will be used in court.

Still the Times hit its mark. The article provides plenty of talking points for those seeking to take down Judge Cannon. Needless to say, no one in the article questions whether the two federal judges who encouraged her to recuse have agendas of their own.

It isn’t hard to imagine the praise Judge Cannon would be getting had she cleared the way for Mr. Smith to convict Mr. Trump before the election. News stories would be highlighting her family’s roots as Cuban exiles, explaining that in Mr. Trump she saw echoes of Fidel Castro’s autocracy. She would be lauded as a strong woman who refused to bend to political pressure.

But because Judge Cannon believes the Constitution and law must not yield to Mr. Smith’s political timetable, she has joined the list of judges—Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas—whose reputations must be destroyed.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
The Dems are already turning to the lawyers to
« Reply #472 on: June 27, 2024, 09:50:02 PM »
save Biden

all I hear is this is coming up that is coming up.

I am thinking the chance that Merchan sentences Trump to prison time has gone way up post debate.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Newt: What to do about the DOJ
« Reply #474 on: July 07, 2024, 08:34:35 AM »




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Schnoz
« Reply #478 on: July 15, 2024, 11:44:26 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Crat lawyers want Judge Cannon "removed"
« Reply #479 on: July 17, 2024, 05:58:28 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-going-to-remove-aileen-cannon-from-trump-case-anti-maga-lawyer/ar-BB1q8H1C?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=e075199924864c89be844f585d5cf150&ei=14

About Justice Thomas thoughts on the appointment of hitman Jack Smith as special counsel:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/clarence-thomas-opinion-jack-smith-appointed-special-counsel-rcna161975



And of course, Judge Merchan and NYAG James acted in total good faith in upholding the rule of law which Dems lauded :roll: :wink:

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Qualified Immunity Takes a Hit at the School Board Redux
« Reply #480 on: July 17, 2024, 11:06:21 AM »
Reposted here per our esteemed Global Moderator:

This kind of officious abuse of office deserves a strong rebuke. Hopefully there’s also renumeration involved so these clowns get hit in the wallet good and hard, too:

No Qualified Immunity when "Public Officials … Baselessly Threaten[] a Citizen-Journalist With Legal Action"
The Volokh Conspiracy / by Eugene Volokh / Jul 16, 2024 at 12:37 PM
["if he did not remove a video on a matter of public concern that he made and posted on Facebook without breaking any law."]

From Berge v. School Committee, decided yesterday by the First Circuit, in an opinion by Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, joined by Judges David Barron and Lara Montecalvo (though there's a lot more going on in the opinion as well):

On a motion to dismiss a case, does qualified immunity protect public officials who baselessly threatened a citizen-journalist with legal action if he did not remove a video on a matter of public concern that he made and posted on Facebook without breaking any law? We answer no …. {[A]s a heads-up for the legal neophytes out there, qualified immunity gives officials cover when they decide close questions in reasonable (even if ultimately wrong) ways—sparing them from money-damages liability unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time (much more on all that soon).} …

Inge Berge is a citizen-journalist living in Gloucester, Massachusetts. Back in early March 2022, he went to the city's school superintendent's office—which is open to the public (during specified hours, we presume). He wanted to buy tickets to his daughter's sold-out school play. And he wanted to hear from officials why the school's COVID-19 rules still capped the number of play-goers when the state had already lifted its COVID-19 mandates by then.

Visibly filming as he went along (he kept his camera out for all to see), Berge made sure to also tell everyone he met that he was recording. And no sign banned or restricted filming in the building's publicly accessible areas either.

Talking to executive secretary Stephanie Delisi, Berge said, "I'm filming this. I'm doing a story on it. If that's okay with you." "No, no I don't want to be filmed," Delisi answered back. Berge kept openly filming. Delisi then walked into superintendent Ben Lummis's office.

Standing at the door of his office, Lummis asked Berge to stop recording. "You do not have permission to film in this area." Berge kept openly filming. "I'm happy to speak with you," Lummis added, "if you turn that off." "You do not have my permission to film here right now," Lummis said as well. Berge kept openly filming. And Lummis closed his office door.

Assistant superintendent Gregg Bach then walked over to Berge. And with Berge still openly filming, Bach took notes about Berge's bid to see his daughter's play. Unlike the others, Bach voiced no objection to Berge's filming.

Hoping to "expose" the "unreasonableness" of the district's "policy," Berge uploaded the video (along with his commentary) to Facebook that very day. And he made the material publicly viewable as well.

None too pleased, district-human-resources director Roberta Eason fired off a letter to Berge within hours. Citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(C), she accused him of violating Massachusetts's wiretap act by not getting "the consent" of all participating officials before recording and posting the film. And she "demand[ed]" that he "immediately" remove the video or face "legal action" (his supposed wiretap act violation was the one and only reason she gave for the removal demand).

Turns out she was way off base in relying on the wiretap act. And that is because this law pertinently bans "secret" recordings, which Berge's most certainly was not….

Berge did not do as directed, however. He instead sued …. According to that count, defendants threatened "bogus legal" action under the state wiretap act to "frighten him into suppressing his own First Amendment rights." …

[W]e—after taking Berge's allegations as true (though knowing that discovery or trial evidence may cast the case in a different light)—have a hard time picturing a more textbook First Amendment violation.

Berge very publicly recorded public officials performing public duties in the publicly accessible part of a public building—all to get information about the district's COVID-19 policies, in a form he could then share, with the goal (to quote again from the complaint) of "expos[ing] and comment[ing] on the unreasonableness" of those "polic[ies]." And his speech (front and center in the complaint) about COVID-19 protocols—the kind that has sparked much political and social debate (and litigation too)—strikes us as sufficiently "a subject of legitimate news interest" to come within the sphere of public concern.

If the First Amendment means anything in a situation like this, it is that public officials cannot—as they did here—threaten a person with legal action under an obviously inapt statute simply because he published speech they did not like. "[T]o prevent the pursuit of legal action in this matter," the Eason-signed letter "demand[ed]" that Berge "immediately remove the

from [his] Facebook account and/or any other communications." Which shows the complaint plausibly alleges that the individual defendants knew the legal-action threat centered on Berge's right to publish. What is more—and as already explained—the letter cited the state wiretap act as the only basis for the removal demand (no one defends the threat on any other ground). But—as also earlier noted—the wiretap act only bans "secret" recordings (in which the persons recorded did not know they were being recorded) and thus does not apply here. Which shows the complaint plausibly alleges that the individual defendants knew such action was baseless….

Shifting then from qualified immunity's step one (constitutional rights violation) to step two (clearly established law), we also think it follows naturally from the above cases that Berge has plausibly pled a violation of a clearly established right to publish on a topic of public interest when the violators acted (as a reminder, but using a different case quote, a right is "clearly established" when it is no longer among the "hazy" area of constitutional issues that might be "reasonably misapprehend[ed]"). And by "acted" we mean (as the complaint alleges) threatening Berge with an obviously groundless legal action: Surely no sensible official reading these long-on-the-books opinions could believe that that act—assuming it represents an adverse action—was not a burden on Berge's First Amendment right to publish on a matter of public concern. So given all this, Berge's complaint plausibly alleges that the threat constituted First Amendment retaliation in violation of his clearly established right….

Marc J. Randazza, Jay M. Wolman, and Robert J. Morris II (Randazza Legal Group, PLLC) represent Berge.

The post No Qualified Immunity when "Public Officials … Baselessly Threaten[] a Citizen-Journalist With Legal Action" appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/16/no-qualified-immunity-when-public-officials-baselessly-threaten-a-citizen-journalist-with-legal-action/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #481 on: July 17, 2024, 04:11:32 PM »
Thank you.

So, how would each of us here apply qualified immunity to this threat?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Politico: Trump case against Pulitzer Board to proceed
« Reply #482 on: July 22, 2024, 04:18:05 AM »
Trump wins round in libel suit against Pulitzer Prize Board over Russia stories
A Florida judge rejected bids to end case linked to journalism awards to Washington Post and New York Times.

Signage for The Pulitzer Prizes appear at Columbia University on May 28, 2019, in New York. 
Signage for The Pulitzer Prizes appear at Columbia University on May 28, 2019, in New York. | Bebeto Matthews/AP

By JOSH GERSTEIN

07/21/2024 11:00 AM EDT

Donald Trump scored a significant court win Saturday as a state judge in Florida turned down attempts by the Pulitzer Prize Board to toss out a libel lawsuit Trump filed in 2022 relating to a series of reports in the New York Times and Washington Post on the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

In a 14-page ruling issued Saturday, Senior Judge Robert Pegg turned down arguments from the prominent journalism awards panel that their decision to bestow the national reporting prize on the staffs of the two newspapers in 2018 amounted to a statement of “pure opinion” rather than fact.

The libel suit does not hinge directly on the articles the Times and Post published about the Trump campaign’s links to Russia or on the decision to award the Pulitzer to the newspapers.

Instead, the case focuses on the board’s decision in 2022 to publicly reaffirm those awards despite repeated complaints by Trump that the the stories contained numerous falsehoods and were undermined by the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s two-year investigation into those issues.

Trump appears to have zeroed in on the board’s 2022 statement about the reviews it ordered of the earlier prizes because Florida law has a two-year statute of limitations for defamation cases.

In a post on his Trump Social platform on Saturday, Trump’s touted Pegg’s ruling, saying the judge “issued a Powerful Decision totally and completely DENYING the Pulitzer Prize Board’s desperate attempt to dismiss my ironclad Defamation Lawsuit against them for awarding the once respected Pulitzer Prizes to Fake News Stories about the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax by The Failing New York Times and The Washington Compost.”

Trump said Pegg stated that Mueller’s report on his probe “debunked” the Times and Post reports, but the judge’s decision actually says that Trump claimed in the suit that the special prosecutor’s work demonstrated that the newspapers’ reporting was incorrect.

However, Pegg’s ruling does suggest he believes the Pulitzer Board’s review of Trump’s complaint was shoddy. He noted that the group’s statement reaffirming the awards failed to “address if or how the ‘independent reviewers’ were able to verify the anonymous sources that appear throughout the Awarded Articles and were critical to advancing the larger Russia Collusion Hoax narrative.”

📣 Want more POLITICO? Download our mobile app to save stories, get notifications and more. In iOS or Android.
“Instead, the reader is left to wonder if that was even attempted,” wrote Pegg, who retired in 2018, but was later named as a senior judge to help courts cope with crowded dockets.

Mueller’s report, released in March 2019, indicated that the investigation he conducted “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

In another decision Saturday, Pegg dismissed a bid by most of the defendants in the case to be dismissed from the case on grounds that they lack sufficient ties to Florida for the courts there to have jurisdiction over them.

The rulings mean Trump’s suit will likely continue into a discovery phase, where the former president’s lawyers will be able to question Pulitzer board members about discussions related to the awards to the Times and Post. Trump’s attorneys are also expected to seek to expose who conducted the two reviews the board said it commissioned that reaffirmed the accuracy of the newspapers’ work.

Pulitzer officials and their attorneys did not immediately respond to requests late Saturday for comment on the decisions. The Philadelphia-based law firm representing the awards panel members, Ballard Spahr, also represents POLITICO and other news outlets in various matters.

Trump’s suit names as defendants the board members and administrative staff of the Pulitzers at the time the 2018 prizes were awarded. He filed the case in December 2022 in Okeechobee County, which is in the central portion of the state, about 60 miles northwest of Trump’s home in Palm Beach.

In Trump’s social media post about the case, he echoed his previous calls for changes to the nation’s libel laws, calling the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan precedent “deeply outdated” and “from a bygone Era, before the Media went Radical and Woke, as they suffer from a terminal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Counter Lawfare?
« Reply #483 on: July 22, 2024, 12:50:44 PM »
MO Attorney General sues NY for it’s lawfare pursuit of Trump.

https://share.icloud.com/photos/06eEKJ3S1tbqdJ96-9M36MskQ

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Smith's Appeal of Cannon's Decision Should Not Be Expedited
« Reply #484 on: July 24, 2024, 06:07:54 AM »
This piece seems like something Captain Obvious should opine. Alas, lawfare has so twisted so many things this needs to be said:


[Josh Blackman] New in the American Spectator: The 11th Circuit Should Reject Jack Smith's Past Political Justifications to Expedite His Latest Appeal
The Volokh Conspiracy by Josh Blackman / Jul 24, 2024 at 8:52 AM//keep unread//hide
Is this article about Legal Tech?

YES

NO
["The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has no reason to accommodate politically motivated efforts to convict Trump before the election or inauguration."]

Seth Barrett Tillman and I published a new essay in the American Spectator concerning Special Counsel Jack Smith's pending appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. We write that Smith's only justification to expedite the appeal is to obtain a conviction before the election, or even before the inauguration. The courts are under no obligation to accommodate Smith's politically motivated efforts.

Here is the introduction:

Special Counsel Jack Smith is on a mission to convict Donald Trump before the election, and if needed, before the inauguration. At every level of the judiciary, Smith has urged federal judges to move at breakneck speed so he can get his man. Now that Judge Aileen Cannon has determined that Smith was unlawfully appointed, Smith is once again racing for another appeal. But there is no good reason for the courts to move more quickly than they usually would. Indeed, moving any faster or slower than normal would suggest that the judges are favoring one side or the other.

Despite all the faux outrage over Judge Cannon's decision, she disqualified only one person from pursuing this case: Jack Smith. Cannon did not grant Trump any immunity for his actions during or after he left office. The United States attorney for the southern district of Florida is fully capable of prosecuting Trump. To be sure, Attorney General Merrick Garland does not want his Justice Department to take the heat for prosecuting his boss's political rival, but that is a political problem for Garland and the administration and not a legal problem for the judiciary. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has no reason to accommodate politically motivated efforts to convict Trump before the election or inauguration. Trump should be treated like any other defendant.

And from the conclusion:

Smith seems to have determined that it is in the best interest of our democracy for voters to know whether Trump is convicted of a federal felony before voting. This is an extremely difficult political judgment that turns on disputed conceptions of what the public ought to know for the sake of democracy. Moreover, seeking to time a trial and conviction in this manner would mark a public and complete break with DOJ principles and policies of prosecutorial neutrality. It is imperative that the case against Trump be tried in the ordinary course of law, in the ordinary way, under an ordinary schedule. This case cannot be tried using newly invented legal rules, by a faux prosecutor, under an expedited schedule serving nakedly political (if not partisan) ends. Then-Attorney General Robert H. Jackson wisely observed that "the most dangerous power of the prosecutor" is "that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted." Only by adhering to this course of conduct does the judiciary uphold the rule of law.

I will report back when Smith files a motion to expedite the appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, or whether he seeks certiorari before judgment.

The post New in the American Spectator: The 11th Circuit Should Reject Jack Smith's Past Political Justifications to Expedite His Latest Appeal appeared first on Reason.com.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2024, 06:09:43 AM by Body-by-Guinness »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
WT: No evidence Trump meddled in Stone sentencing
« Reply #485 on: July 25, 2024, 07:19:07 AM »


Watchdog: No evidence Trump influenced Stone’s sentencing

Correction was under discretion of attorney general

BY JEFF MORDOCK THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog said Wednesday there is no evidence that then-President Donald Trump pushed Attorney General William Barr in 2020 to reverse prosecutors’ stiff sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone, a longtime Trump friend and adviser.

In an 85-page report, Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz concluded there is an “absence of evidence” that Mr. Barr’s decision was influenced by Mr. Trump’s criticism of the sentencing recommendation.

“No law, rule, regulation or DOJ policy, including those related to conflicts or ethics prohibited Barr’s participation in the Stone sentencing and, therefore, the decision whether to participate was ultimately a discretionary one left to the judgment of the Attorney General,” Mr. Horowitz wrote in the report.

“We found that it was within the Attorney General’s discretion to correct what he viewed as an unjust submission,” he wrote later.

Still, Mr. Horowitz said Mr. Barr’s decision to change the sentencing recommendation was “an extraordinary step” that raised “questions and his perceptions” because of Mr. Stone’s friendship with the president.

In November 2019, a federal jury in Washington convicted Mr. Stone on seven criminal counts, including lying to Congress and obstructing the House investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 election.

The four federal prosecutors who worked the case recommended that Mr. Stone receive a prison sentence of between seven and nine years. Prosecutors said the proposal adhered to federal sentencing guidelines and was calculated based on a formula that takes into account the severity of the crime, the type of conduct involved and the defendant’s criminal history.

Hours later, Justice Department officials said they would take the unusual step of revising the sentencing recommendation. Timothy Shea, the then-U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, issued a new legal filing saying Mr. Stone deserved “far less” time in prison than the seven- to nine-year span recommended by prosecutors.

The filing, which did not offer a new sentencing recommendation, came hours after Mr. Trump had criticized the Justice Department’s proposal for Mr. Stone’s punishment as unduly harsh.

In his filing, Mr. Shea said the prison recommendation “does not accurately reflect the Department of Justice’s position on what would be a reasonable sentence” and that the original proposal by prosecutors was “excessive and unwarranted.”

The reversal prompted the four prosecutors in the case to resign from the Justice Department.

Ultimately, Mr. Stone was sentenced to three years in prison, but Mr. Trump commuted his sentence in 2020 before he was to report to prison. Mr. Trump pardoned Mr. Stone in December 2020.

Mr. Horowitz said the investigation found no evidence that Justice Department leadership exerted pressure on Mr. Shea to change the prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation. However, he concluded that Mr. Shea’s “ineffectual leadership” led to Justice Department officials, including Mr. Barr, stepping in to reverse the prosecutors.

The report blasts Mr. Shea as indecisive and “a poor communicator.” He had raised concerns about prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations but didn’t know what to do about it. After struggling with what to do for days, Mr. Shea went to Mr. Barr just hours before the filing deadline, according to the report.

Before Mr. Shea reached out to Mr. Barr, the attorney general had no involvement in the Stone case. During their conversation, Mr. Shea left Mr. Barr with the impression that prosecutors would defer to the court on sentencing, the report said. Thus, Mr. Barr had learned from media reports that prosecutors had recommended a sentence inconsistent with what Mr. Shea told him earlier that day.

“We found that Shea’s ineffectual leadership set in motion a sequence of events that contributed to the trial team viewing his actions with suspicion and resulted in DOJ leadership taking the extraordinary step of changing a filed sentencing recommendation,” Mr. Horowitz wrote.

After discussing it with his staff, Mr. Barr drafted a second memorandum reversing the prosecutors’ initial recommendation. The report concluded that Mr. Barr sought to change the recommendation hours before Mr. Trump began criticizing prosecutors in a series of tweets shortly before midnight.

“The available evidence is that all the discussions between Shea and Barr, and between Barr and his staff concerned whether the advisory sentencing guidelines range was just and whether the Department should support a variance from it,” Mr. Horowitz wrote. “We noted that even career lawyers at the DC [U.S. Attorney’s Office] believed at the time that reasonable minds could differ about the sentencing recommendation.”


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #487 on: July 25, 2024, 07:29:12 AM »
I continue to hear some on news saying he was convicted of "rape"

of course by partisan prosecutor, judge, and jury in a highly partisan location.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #488 on: July 25, 2024, 07:37:00 AM »
In general, the word "rape" has come to lose precision in meaning.

I remember some years ago that some study on rape said that some women did not know that they had been raped until they were told if they wanted to say "No" but did not, also was rape or something like that.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
"Progressives" Wargame 2025 Insurrection
« Reply #490 on: August 29, 2024, 11:51:11 AM »
Well this is charming. Imagine the hue and cry were a similar Republican effort discovered:

‘Public enemy’ with a ‘violence fetish’: Tucker Carlson and Dr Waller talk about who’s plotting a coup
J. Michael Waller  July 31, 2024

Recent news of a new political warfare exercise to block a constitutional transition of presidential power has thrown more light on well-connected radical lawyers and their powerful network inside the Justice Department and Pentagon. The war game is part of the 2024 Democracy Futures Project, a revival of a 2020 exercise called the Transition Integrity Project. The 2020 exercise called for a military coup against Trump if his election was certified. A revived exercise, involving many of the same people, is calling for a coup again, while fanning public fears that it is Trump who would stage the coup.

Earlier this year, the Center for Security Policy’s Senior Analyst for Strategy, Dr. J. Michael Waller, spent an afternoon with Tucker Carlson to discuss the 2020 project and efforts this year to disrupt the American presidential election. The 2020 and 2024 exercises to abort a constitutional transfer of power are not to be confused with an identically named exercise sponsored earlier this year by the Heritage Foundation. Waller represented the FBI, Department of Justice, and intelligence community in that exercise.

Back to the Tucker Carlson interview, aired in May:

“Four years ago, a professor at Georgetown University called Rosa Brooks headed up a group that she called the Transition Integrity Project,” Carlson said in his opening monologue. Brooks is a Georgetown University Law professor and an adjunct scholar at West Point. She was a legal counsel during the Obama administration for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy – the policymaking leader of the Pentagon who politicized the uniformed armed forces. She has worked for George Soros.

“So the goal of the Transition Integrity Project, this was before the last presidential election, of course, was to play out different outcomes from that election and see how the country would handle each one. Kind of a war game, a political war game,” said Carlson.

“The project was made up from representatives from a bunch of different groups but similar groups law professors, political strategists, retired military officers, all from the left. Now, their stated goal was to focus on four possible outcomes of the 2020 election a narrow Biden win, a big Biden win, a Trump win, and a scenario with no immediate winner,” he said.

In the four-day TIP exercise of 2020, Bill Kristol played President Donald Trump, former Democrat White House chief of staff John Podesta played Joe Biden, and so forth.

TIP was “calling for a military coup” against Donald Trump, Carlson said.

“The head of the project, the co-founder of the project, Rosa Brooks, had actually called for reconsidering and getting rid of civilian control of the military back in 2016,” Waller added.

The 2020 scenarios, Carlson summarized, were “Elect our guy, or America falls apart and people die. … the assessment was clear. You could not allow Donald Trump to win or else America would end.”

Will TIP or anything like it influence the elections this year? “Well, J. Michael Waller has thought a lot about this,” Carlson said. “He once worked for the CIA. He knows a lot about the intel world having been part of it. He’s a senior analyst for strategy at the Center for Security Policy, the author of a new book called Big Intel.

“For these guys, it was to determine in 2020 that the transition from a Trump administration would be nice and orderly,” Waller said. “And if it wasn’t orderly, the military should intervene to remove Donald Trump.”

Public enemy: The progressives’ dark road toward a one-party state

“Okay, so it was calling for a military coup” in 2016, Carlson said. “So this is maybe a side road, but I think it’s important if the military is not controlled by elected officials, as it would be in a democracy: Who would make decisions about military force?

Waller: “They’re not clear about that.”

Carlson: “Oh, they’re not clear about that.”

Waller: “This is Banana Republic stuff.”

Carlson: “Well, of course, by definition.”

Waller: “Yeah. In the name of protecting our constitution.”

Carlson: “Yeah, military junta to save democracy. So Rosa Brooks is called for that.”

Waller: “So even when Trump was … inaugurated two weeks later [in 2017], she wrote that we have to find a way to remove him from power.”

This is un-American thinking, both agreed. Typical of a red-diaper baby like Brooks, who was raised in a Democratic Socialists of America household to transform the United States into a Marxist one-party state.

Carlson: “So would you say, just as just so we can define terms at the outset, that anyone who calls for a military coup against an elected official is, by definition, an enemy of democracy.”

Waller: “Public enemy.”

Carlson: “So what would be the point of this?”

Waller: “To make sure that their transition has integrity, meaning that even according to their latest war games, if Donald Trump wins a free and fair election, he still has to be removed.”

Carlson: “So if you have people again, just a definition of terms. If you have people who are calling for the removal by force of an elected official, that is I mean, that is insurrection, right?”

Waller: “It’s yes, it’s legal insurrection because they’re doing this now through lawfare. They’re doing it through Georgetown University Law Center. That’s the premier law school in Washington, DC. It’s a feeder school to the Justice Department. It’s a feeder school to Supreme Court clerks. Right into the whole intelligence community. And this stuff is being planned there.”

Carlson: “So a country that cared about its own preservation, cared to, you know, set its own systems, continue for the benefit of its grandchildren, would immediately shut down Georgetown University Law Center, obviously, because it’s a, it’s an insurrectionist.”

Even The Atlantic was appalled

Carlson continued, “there is a group of people who meet at Georgetown University Law School to think through how to seize power from Trump if he were elected in 2024. Is that what you’re saying?”

Waller: “That’s what we know now from when they themselves talked about it to NBC. And then they invited a reporter from The Atlantic to actually attend the event. And he was so disturbed by it, he said, this is a real problematic issue for people who believe in the Constitution. So even The Atlantic is thinking this is dangerous.”

“You have these red diaper babies like Rosa Brooks, who, you know, comes from a household that was really on the Soviet side during the Cold War. For sure. Who was then a senior Pentagon official selecting who the Obama generals would be writing about how we have to end civilian control or reconsider or do away with civilian control of the military.

“Wargaming out military coups against a sitting president. First after a after a disputed election and now being the host of an entire project to unseat a president who they agree would have been legally and clearly elected by a majority of the public and electoral votes. This is done now in the name of protecting the Constitution. So you have the Transition Integrity Project of 2020 and whatever its name is right now, being run under Rosa Brooks at Georgetown University.”

‘I think Rosa Brooks is a violence fetishist’

Carlson: “I think I’ll just say this is my opinion. I think Rosa Brooks is a violence fetishist who loves violence, obviously fantasizes about violence. So this should be I mean, obviously it’s a threat. Any anybody with power who fetishizes violence domestically is scary, but there’s sort of no one to call about this, right?”

Waller: “No, because what they’re doing is they’re manipulating the legal system. So she, the somebody under [Brooks], Mary McCord, is sort of the Zelig of all of this. She’s been characterized as this in the American Spectator. She’s … everywhere you look. She is a counsel on the Trump impeachment committee, one impeachment committee to the January 6th committee…. she is involved in all of these and more, and she’s running a program to plan over 100 pieces of litigation. They don’t even know who the defendants will be because they’re not even in office. … To sue to prevent the government from functioning if the election doesn’t go the way they want it to.

“And her husband, whose last name is Snook, he was one of these career anonymous bureaucrats working inside the Supreme Court. He’s outside now, but his job, as she puts together the litigation with her team, is to make sure it’s not shopped to other jurisdictions where they won’t win. So they want to keep it in the Washington, DC circuit where they’re guaranteed a win.”

Carlson: “Right. So I would assume, that the intel agencies are involved in this.”

Waller: “We know retired [intelligence officials are involved]. And of course, you’re not always retired when you retire. And then you have former officials who still have security clearances. So even if they retired, they still have access to classified information and a window inside the machine.”

Why do these people still have security clearances?

Carlson: “Can I ask you, I mean, one of the great frustrations – there were so many frustrations in the Trump administration, you know, like refusing to act in America’s interest or even your own interest. But one of them was: Why would you let [former CIA Director John] Brennan, someone like Brennan, who’s a liar and a force for violence and anti-Americanism. Why would you allow that guy to continue to hold a security clearance? Why do any of these people still have their clearances? Why can’t anyone do anything about that?”

Waller: “Well, they can. A president can revoke somebody’s clearance or somebody acting in the president’s authority. It’s just part of the Big Intel industry in Washington where you leave government service. So you built your whole career at taxpayer expense, right? You have your security clearance. You go out then into the intelligence-industrial complex to make a fortune as a contractor. And then you land university gigs and media gigs.

Carlson: “And but you retain your clearance as you do this. Yeah. So that’s a massive advantage, correct?”

Waller: “It’s huge because now you’re already cleared, you’re already in the system. You’re already accepted. You’re already one of them.”

Carlson: “Right.”
Waller: “And so you’re part of a fraternity.”

Carlson: “So even though you’re not working for the government and therefore we’re not bound by it in the civil service rules, you can do whatever you want. You’re just a private contractor. There are very few limits on your behavior, but you still benefit from the knowledge of what the government is doing. You know a lot more about what the government is doing than the average taxpayer or voter. Correct. Right.”

Waller: “And that’s the reason some should keep their clearances, because we need that kind of institutional knowledge once people leave. But we don’t need it on this massive industrial scale like they have in Washington, D.C.”

Carlson: “So again, why wouldn’t if you were the incoming Republican president, you just cancel the security clearances of people who are political actors? I mean, that’s not hard, is it?”

Waller: “No, because you’re abusing – it’s a privilege to have a clearance.”

Carlson: “I don’t have a clearance.”

Waller: “No, I don’t have a clearance.”

Carlson: “Yeah.”

Waller: “So, it’s a privilege to have it. And you’re doing it at the expense of the taxpayer. So you’re still, in effect, a public servant, even if you’re in the private sector. But this has just become one big club, one huge business, one big grift in many ways, but one big political war now, where you have a merger between hardcore political activists, violence fetishists and public enemy types and the people who are supposed to be inside our system to serve our country and protect our Constitution.”

Where are we headed as a country?

Carlson: “So, how do you think this plays out? Let’s say Trump gets elected. What happens?”

Waller: “They’ll have 100 pieces of litigation ready to go out the door during the presidential transition. To hamstring him. To hamstring all his appointees. They have their allies inside the government to slow walk security clearances to make sure that his appointees who don’t have clearances cannot get clearances. He’ll be a one-term president. So the bureaucracy knows. Just ride it out. Just drag things as slowly as you can and make things as hard as you can. And then and then shop for the right judicial venues to make sure that you get a court circuit that will rule favorably in your case. So just think, when you’re a Washington insider at Georgetown Law School and your husband was on the Supreme Court staff, you’re networked across the Justice Department, your network, among the judges, you know everyone. They’re your friends. They’re your social circles. Of course they’re going to help you.

Carlson: “It sounds like the swamp wasn’t drained. Not at all. Not at all. Has it gotten stronger?”

Waller: “Yeah, because President Trump came in saying he would drain it. He didn’t have any idea what he was up against. He didn’t have a team. He didn’t have a strategy. He didn’t have blueprints. He just went ahead and thought he could do it. And then look what happened. So the swamp is stronger than ever.”

Waller: “We have a good opportunity right now because we have a lot better lay of the land than back in 2020. Not much attention was paid to the Transition Integrity Project. It operated semi-secretly. Now it’s come out of the closet and we know who more of the characters are. We’ve had four years to look at who these actors are and how they operate. We know a lot more about their game plan. They’ve gotten careless in a lot of areas.

So if you do have an organized team and President Trump, now that he knows what he’s up against, he can focus on it more. And then others support him. Some of them have been victims of this personally. They can focus on it more. So I think between now and transition time we’re going to be a lot wiser. Last time they were just blindsided.

“That’s one part. The second part is there are teams out there who have already writing action plans. And two of the last chapters in Big Intel show action plans. What do you do with the FBI? What do you do with the CIA? What can a president do with executive orders? And then what executive orders can be made into law so they can’t easily be reversed? Trump didn’t have that the first time around.”

Carlson: “And do you think he’s got a shot of making meaningful reform?”

Waller: “That remains to be seen in terms of exposing things. Yes, in terms of making any meaningful reform. You need a president to do it. Armed with executive orders, like when Obama came in, he had an army of executive people writing his executive orders during his transition, so that his first days and weeks as president, he was fundamentally transforming the government by fiat.”

Carlson: “Yeah.”

Waller: “Trump didn’t do that. Biden has done it. And then it withdrew Trump’s executive orders and then imposed more of its own, even on the first day. A lot of the censorship, of course, and weaponization of intelligence was first order of business stuff in Biden’s first hours in office. And it came. As a straight continuum from the Obama team beforehand. So, you know, it’s all the same people.”

Carlson: “So, I mean, maybe everyone should stop pretending it’s a democracy. Maybe everyone you know who uses that term unironically should have it burned on his lips like this. That’s not a democracy.

Waller: “Or even a constitutional republic, right? You can’t have it this way. Congress is funding things that they know are unconstitutional. The Justice Department is enforcing things that its lawyers know are unconstitutional. And now you have Mary McCord in her group at Georgetown Law, writing the whole orchestra for the transition after November of this year. To rip the constitution to shreds.”

J. Michael Waller
Senior Analyst for Strategy

Please Share:

https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/public-enemy-with-a-violence-fetish-tucker-carlson-and-dr-waller-talk-about-whos-plotting-a-coup/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Collapse of the Trump Lawfare Effort?
« Reply #491 on: September 13, 2024, 07:20:20 AM »
Hooray for superior courts and the constitution:

Lawfare Collapsing Amidst Harris’ Vow To Prosecute Trump

By Kenin SpivakSeptember 13, 2024

Lawfare Collapsing Amidst Harris’ Vow To Prosecute Trump AP

Largely shedding Joe Biden’s canard that Trump must be defeated to save democracy, Kamala Harris’ conceit is that she prosecutes criminals and Donald Trump is one. “I know Donald Trump’s type,” she sneers.

As San Francisco district attorney and then California attorney general, Harris supported jailing parents of truants, suppressed evidence, keeping an innocent man on death row, repeatedly covered up misconduct, leading to the dismissal of more than 600 cases, incarcerated prisoners beyond their sentences, violated Federal laws that protect donor privacy, and failed to disclose conflicts of interest arising from her personal relationships. Her record of abusing prosecutorial power fits perfectly with Democrat lawfare against Trump and his advisers.

Now, following setbacks for prosecutors, Trump will have a reprieve in further substantive proceedings until after the election.

Colorado, Maine, and Illinois declared Trump an “insurrectionist,” ineligible for the presidency under the 14th Up to 32 other states were considering doing the same. In Trump v. Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected this travesty. Among other failings, the states violated a requirement that Congress determine the process, and Trump has never been indicted for, let alone convicted of, insurrection.

The left’s least favorite judge, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, dismissed the Mar-a-Lago classified records case, holding that Jack Smith’s appointment as special prosecutor violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution (Article II, § 2) and his use of a permanent indefinite appropriation violated the Appropriations Clause (Article I, § 9). The government refused a compromise that might have saved the case, and is appealing.

In Trump v. United States, a 6-3 court held that a president is immune from prosecution for official acts, his motives cannot be questioned, and his official acts may not be used as evidence in a prosecution of his private acts. Smith has filed a superseding indictment that suffers many of the same defects as the initial indictment, including as to immunity, novel legal theories, and the First Amendment rights of free speech and petition. Despite U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkin’s best efforts to move the case forward, she has bowed to reality and delayed the next hearing until after the election.

In Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court threw out federal prosecutors’ use of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) to prosecute Jan. 6 defendants for interfering in congressional proceedings, holding that the statute is limited to tampering with, or destroying, official records. That ruling also will narrow Trump’s election fraud case.
A Georgia appeals court agreed to hear a challenge to Fani Willis’ right to remain as prosecutor, scheduling arguments too late for a trial this year. Even if Willis prevails, the immunity decision, First Amendment, and misapplication of the Georgia RICO statute likely will doom her case.
A Nevada court dismissed an indictment against six Republicans accused of submitting certificates to Congress falsely declaring Trump the winner of the state’s 2020 presidential election.

The New York cases are more problematic abuses by prosecutors who ran on platforms of “getting” Trump:

There are at least a dozen reasons Trump’s conviction in New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s business records case should be reversed. Trial Judge Juan Merchan has delayed sentencing until Nov. 26, but he first must rule on whether to vacate the verdict because he allowed testimony by federal officials (Hopes Hicks and Trump’s assistant) about Trump’s official acts as president, now prohibited by the Supreme Court’s immunity decision. More damaging, in Erlinger v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a unanimous jury verdict is required for any factual finding that increases a potential sentence. Merchan did not require unanimity to identify the so-called “other crime” used to convert an expired business records misdemeanor into 34 felonies.

Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump liable in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ so-called civil fraud case for misstating asset values in loan applications, though the banks testified they did not rely on the statements, lost no money, and would continue to do business with Trump. Engoron ordered Trump to pay $455 million and forfeit his New York businesses. The New York appeals court stayed most of Engoron’s ruling and allowed Trump to post a reduced bond of $175 million for his appeal. The finding of liability may survive, but the penalties should be vacated as excessive under the 8th Amendment and Article I §5 of the New York Constitution, among other flaws.
If Trump is elected, he can order that the federal prosecutions against him end, or pardon himself, and the state cases likely will be delayed until he leaves office. If Harris wins, the Democrats can be expected to press forward. Though Trump’s legal team has carved back most of the cases and will continue to do so, a conviction still could mean jail time.

Democrats are doing better in their lawfare against Trump’s advisers, who have limited immunity defenses. Several are defendants in Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan. Rudy Guliani and John Eastman are being disbarred, and at least eight other Trump lawyers face disciplinary proceedings. Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon were jailed for refusing to testify to the Jan. 6 Committee. The last time a recalcitrant congressional witness was jailed appears to be 1948.

But for Trump’s wealth and perseverance, he might now be in jail. Democrats financially destroyed or jailed his closest political advisers and are broadly threatening Republican party lawyers. Usually, Harris talks about the criminal justice system from the far left. But, like other progressives, when she is in pursuit mode, the Constitution, equal justice, and fundamental principles are mere affect.

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including The American Mind, National Review, the National Association of Scholars, television, radio, and podcasts.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/09/13/lawfare_collapsing_amidst_harris_vow_to_prosecute_trump_151609.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawFRJ8pleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXjgyCJE2I2y8To2pMA0iv2I6vKp-iWTaBsXC4q45VqmVfo9ZG-S3oVhzg_aem_W-qcvcH1LRCKnjmjcUf2Xg


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Politics by Lawfare, Jack Smith's Judicial Misconduct, NY Magazine
« Reply #493 on: October 04, 2024, 06:29:44 AM »
[Doug] Justices who unanimously overturned the Jack Smith prosecution of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell include Elena Kagan, Sonja Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States#Further_reading
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jack-smith-october-surprise-donald-trump.html?utm_source=msn&utm_medium=f1&utm_campaign=feed-part

Oct. 3, 2024
Jack Smith’s October Cheap Shot
By Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and a contributor to CAFE

Jack Smith has failed in his quest to try Donald Trump before the 2024 election. So instead, the special counsel has bent ordinary procedure to get in one last shot, just weeks before voters go to the polls.

Smith has now dropped a 165-page doorstop of a filing in federal court, on the issue of Trump’s immunity from prosecution. Judge Tanya Chutkan — who suddenly claims not to care about the impending election despite her earlier efforts to expedite the case to get it in before the very same election, which got her reversed and chastised by the Supreme Court — duly complied with Smith’s wishes, redacted out a few obvious names (who ever might “Arizona Governor [Redacted P-16]” be?), and made the rest public.

There are two headlines here. The immediate takeaway lies in the revelations contained in Smith’s oversize brief. (He asked the judge for, and received, permission to file a brief that was 180 pages long, four times the normal maximum.) We now have damning new details on Trump’s effort to pressure Vice-President Mike Pence to throw the election his way, Trump’s phone use and use of Twitter as the riot unfolded, and his conversations with family members about efforts to contest his electoral loss. The story’s structure is the same as we’ve long known, but the new details lend depth and dimension.

The larger, if less obvious, headline is that Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects. At this point, there’s simply no defending Smith’s conduct on any sort of principled or institutional basis. “But we need to know this stuff before we vote!” is a nice bumper sticker, but it’s neither a response to nor an excuse for Smith’s unprincipled, norm-breaking practice. (It also overlooks the fact that the Justice Department bears responsibility for taking over two and a half years to indict in the first place.)

Let’s go through the problems with what Smith has done here.

First, this is backward. The way motions work — under the federal rules, and consistent with common sense — is that the prosecutor files an indictment; the defense makes motions (to dismiss charges, to suppress evidence, or what have you); and then the prosecution responds to those motions. Makes sense, right? It’s worked for hundreds of years in our courts.

Not here. Not when there’s an election right around the corner and dwindling opportunity to make a dent. So Smith turned the well-established, thoroughly uncontroversial rules of criminal procedure on their head and asked Judge Chutkan for permission to file first — even with no actual defense motion pending. Trump’s team objected, and the judge acknowledged that Smith’s request to file first was “procedurally irregular” — moments before she ruled in Smith’s favor, as she’s done at virtually every consequential turn.

Which brings us to the second point: Smith’s proactive filing is prejudicial to Trump, legally and politically. It’s ironic. Smith has complained throughout the case that Trump’s words might taint the jury pool. Accordingly, the special counsel requested a gag order that was so preposterously broad that even Judge Chutkan slimmed it down considerably (and the Court of Appeals narrowed it further after that).

Yet Smith now uses grand-jury testimony (which ordinarily remains secret at this stage) and drafts up a tidy 165-page document that contains all manner of damaging statements about a criminal defendant, made outside of a trial setting and without being subjected to the rules of evidence or cross-examination, and files it publicly, generating national headlines. You know who’ll see those allegations? The voters, sure — and also members of the jury pool.

And that brings us to our final point: Smith’s conduct here violates core DOJ principle and policy. The Justice Manual — DOJ’s internal bible, essentially — contains a section titled “Actions That May Have an Impact on the Election.” Now: Does Smith’s filing qualify? May it have an impact on the election? Of course. So what does the rule tell us?“Federal prosecutors … may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”

Remember, Smith begged the judge to flip the rules on their head so he could file this document first, and quickly — “any action,” by any reasonable definition — with the election right around the corner. Anyone who objected to James Comey’s outrageous announcements about the Hillary Clinton email investigation on the eve of the 2016 election should feel the same about Smith’s conduct now. What’s the distinction? Both violated ordinary procedure to take public steps, shortly before an election, that plainly would have an impact on that election.

I’m going to hand this one over to one of DOJ’s most esteemed alums, who explained it this way to the Justice Department’s internal watchdog: “To me if it [an election] were 90 days off, and you think it has a significant chance of impacting an election, unless there’s a reason you need to take that action now, you don’t do it.”

Those words were spoken by Sally Yates — former deputy attorney general, venerated career prosecutor, no fan of Trump (who unceremoniously fired her in 2017), and liberal folk hero. As usual, Yates is spot on. And her explanation conveys this indelible truth: If prosecutors bend their principles depending on the identity of their prey, then they’ve got no principles at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More at WSJ from Kim Strassel

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/jack-smiths-october-surprise-court-legal-politics-election-50c5f620?st=KEQd1s

Jack Smith’s October Surprise
It’s impossible not to suspect the special counsel’s filing is politically motivated.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Oct. 3, 2024

Politics hath no fury like a prosecutor scorned, and it appears the American electorate won’t be allowed to forget it. That’s the best read of special counsel Jack Smith’s newly unsealed filing in his criminal case against Donald Trump. Congratulations, Attorney General Merrick Garland: You’ve got your own 2024 “election interference” story line.

Mr. Smith filed the 165-page brief last week, his latest response to an embarrassing defeat at the Supreme Court in July. The justices rapped him for ignoring a weighty question in his Jan. 6 indictment, ruling that a president is entitled to immunity for exercising “core constitutional powers.” That decision requires a pretrial proceeding in which the trial judge sifts which of the allegedly criminal acts count as official, and ultimately ended any prospect of a trial before the election. A sober litigator would have stepped back, allowed the voters to render their judgment on Mr. Trump and his bad behavior, and regroup in November.

Here’s what Mr. Smith did instead. He rushed to file a superseding indictment in August that alleged the same four crimes, taking a minuscule view of core constitutional powers. He then requested the trial judge allow him to file an “oversized” brief—up to 180 pages—laying out the government’s arguments against immunity, and asking her to unseal it. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted the requests, ignoring the Trump legal team’s opposition to a brief that was “quadruple the standard page limits” and that allowed the prosecution “to proffer their untested and biased views to the Court and the public as if they are conclusive.” That brief was made public on Wednesday, 34 days before the election.

Which is the point. You don’t have to be a cynic to suspect Mr. Smith of brass-knuckle politicking. He knows that if Mr. Trump wins in November, both his cases (this one, involving Jan. 6, and the other, involving classified documents) are dead. Ergo Mr. Smith is actively working to undermine a Trump re-election by presenting to the public a bevy of new claims painting the nominee as criminal. Even if that assessment of his motives is unfair—even if he’s the upright legal hero of the left’s description—the timing and nature of his actions provides an inescapable appearance of election interference. That’s why Justice Department policy warns prosecutors to err on the side of restraint when voting draws near.

It’s hard to look at the brief as a considered legal argument. Mr. Smith’s zero-humility prosecutorial approach hasn’t always fared well in court—see the 8-0 Supreme Court reversal of his conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in 2016. The justices in July tried to spare him further legal loss by spelling out a few things. They explained that while certain presidential acts have absolute immunity, many others (including conversations with a vice president about his duty to oversee the counting of electoral votes) have “presumptive” immunity, and the burden is on the government to rebut that premise. It further warned that prosecutors aren’t allowed to second-guess a president’s motives in official decision making.

Mr. Smith shrugs all this off in his new brief, for instance declaring that the Constitution’s directive that the vice president “shall” “open all the [electoral] certificates” on Jan. 6 is no official duty at all. It’s just a “discrete” thing veeps do. (See, that wasn’t hard. Presumption kaput.) He recategorizes moments in the Oval Office as campaign meetings, declares statements Mr. Trump made as clearly those of a “candidate,” and disregards the possibility that a president might have an interest in the integrity of federal elections at the state level. The message to the Supreme Court: Thanks for that ruling, but whatever.

Mr. Smith has to know that even if Judge Chutkan winks this through, he will have a far harder run before the justices, and even perhaps with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. So why do it? Again, the assumption must be politics. The brief is a nifty vehicle for new claims of insidious Trump behavior, which the press corps jumped on with dutiful alacrity, ignoring any legal questions: “11 damning details in Jack Smith’s new brief in the Trump election case,” or “Trump ‘resorted to crimes’ to try to keep power in 2020, Jack Smith alleges.” Remember: 30-odd days to an election.

This is manna to Democrats, who are desperate for their Jan. 6 lawfare campaign to dominate the final sprint, to divert voters (finally!) from their (tedious) obsessions with inflation, border chaos or crime. Will Mr. Smith’s assist help? Who knows. Mr. Trump’s indefensible behavior is already well-known.

But that’s beside the point. The damage is done. The brief is out. And if Kamala Harris does win, half the country will point to this filing as a reason—the latest Justice Department “interference” in an election. Mr. Garland must be proud.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2024, 12:52:29 PM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Smith's Kabuki Theater
« Reply #494 on: October 08, 2024, 02:56:35 PM »
An involved piece with far more formatting than I can contend with so go to the link. The nut graph? Smith's latest DC filing is kabuki theater that will never get anywhere in court, but rather is timed to allow him to release sundry salacious filings under aegis of a normal filing involving an abnormal case, with the judge tacitly supporting this de facto October surprise effort:

https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/what-did-the-supreme-court-instruct?r=1qo1e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, Bureaufare, and the Law of War
« Reply #495 on: October 09, 2024, 08:54:39 AM »
Exactly so.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, Bureaufare, and the Law of War
« Reply #496 on: October 10, 2024, 12:48:31 PM »
I confess I don't much follow the MSM these days. With that said, I'm surprised I haven't heard more about the NY Appellate hearing re the Trump "fraud" case that resulted in close to a half billion dollar fine against Trump. Apparently it did not go well for the NY AG that filed the case and, if I'm reading it right, embarrisingly so. I've no doubt if it went the other way the MSM would be shouting from the rooftops:


Massive civil fraud verdict against Trump gets frosty reception at New York appeals court

A panel of judges voiced skepticism about the size and validity of the nearly half-billion-dollar judgment.

By ERICA ORDEN

09/26/2024 06:42 PM EDT

NEW YORK — Appeals court judges appeared to question the legitimacy of the civil fraud case against Donald Trump as the former president urged the court Thursday to overturn a judgment against him that has ballooned, with interest, to more than $478 million.

In February, a Manhattan trial judge found that Trump and other defendants — including his adult sons, Don Jr. and Eric, along with several business associates — fraudulently inflated his net worth and the value of his real estate properties to obtain favorable rates from banks and insurers.

The nearly half-billion-dollar penalty ordered by the trial judge initially threatened to trigger a financial crisis for Trump. But a New York appeals court sharply reduced the amount of the bond he had to post to avoid immediate enforcement of the verdict. Trump is now asking that same court to toss out the verdict entirely.
During oral arguments on Thursday, some members of the five-judge appeals court panel suggested that New York Attorney General Tish James had overstepped by using the particular New York fraud statute she used to bring the case against Trump. As soon as Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale, arguing for James, began her opening remarks, she was cut off by Associate Justice David Friedman, who questioned whether her office had ever before used the statute “to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners.”


Trump calls his civil fraud verdict ‘a form of Navalny’

SharePlay Video
Associate Justice Llinet Rosado chimed in once Friedman finished to add, “and little to no impact on the public marketplace.”

The justices’ questions echoed one of Trump’s central lines of defense: He has argued that no one was harmed by the inflated valuations.

Vale disputed that suggestion, saying “there was absolutely a public impact and a public interest here,” but she continued to field similar questions from other judges.

“I think you hear underneath all these questions, the question of mission creep,” Associate Justice Peter Moulton said. “Has 6312” — the statute in question — “morphed into something that it was not meant to do?”

“I will stress, your honor, that this does have harm to the public and to the markets,” Vale said in response.

Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, also fielded questions about his arguments as the former president seeks to eliminate one of his most serious financial burdens as he heads into the final stretch of the presidential race.

Sauer argued that in the deals in question, there were “no victims, no complaints.” But Moulton wondered, “What about deterrence?”

Even if the transactions at issue in the Trump case “went down fine,” Moulton said, similar fraudulent conduct in the future “might not go down well, and someone would be harmed by that.”

The panel didn’t rule Thursday.

The former president hasn’t had to turn over the full amount of the judgment because a panel of state appeals judges allowed him to put up only a $175 million bond while he appeals the verdict.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/26/trump-civil-fraud-appeal-oral-arguments-00181339

And an analysis here:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1844426831564505456

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, Bureaufare, and the Law of War
« Reply #497 on: October 10, 2024, 01:39:23 PM »
Something to keep track of with the NY court system, is that the names of courts are infuriatingly misnamed.

Normally we have a trial court, appeals courts, and a supreme court.

But that would be too coherent for NY.

The TRIAL courts are called SUPREME COURTS

and the SUPREME COURT is called "The COURT OF APPEALS".

It can be maddening to keep track of this, and even sincere reporters can get befuddled and/or write without the necessary precision for the reader to be sure of the actual meaning of what he is reading.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Giuliani in Judge Lewis Liman's hands
« Reply #499 on: October 16, 2024, 07:51:03 PM »
lets see

Yale graduate
Democrat - Jewish
recommended to Trump to appoint by Schumer and Gillibrand

Then Trump appointed him.

In the slander case on the hook
for a ridiculous $146 million.

Let's see if judge is reasonable.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/travesty-federal-judge-to-rule-on-rudy-giuliani-s-assets-amid-146-million-judgment/ss-AA1soBEK?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=40bbd5f5af20469fb0557f57b7b43d5f&ei=32#image=1