Politics by Lawfare, Bureaufare, and the Law of War

[Crafty_Dog]

Thanks for noting this.   I have been getting "I'm getting fuct" emails from Rudy.   Donald seems to have left him hanging?   Or did Rudy get himself where he finds himself?

Dunno.

[Crafty_Dog]

Have not had a chance to give this a close read yet:

https://thenationalpulse.com/2024/10/18/exclusive-bannon-jail-statement-biden-harris-are-illegally-holding-me-past-my-release-date/

[ccp]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-forecast-plan-to-go-after-high-profile-trump-supporters-starting-with-elon-musk/ar-AA1sVFVz?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=aa4aa3b2e4a44c4b9b476b0efe74cb57&ei=12

same as they are doing to Trump.

Funny they don't figure out same for Soros or Clinton org. or Zuckerberg, or even how about some of the DC law firms.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-forecast-plan-to-go-after-high-profile-trump-supporters-starting-with-elon-musk/ar-AA1sVFVz?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=aa4aa3b2e4a44c4b9b476b0efe74cb57&ei=12

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-lvRjCAog0

[ccp]

Yes.
How can we stop the lawfare or control it?

VDH says we can retaliate in kind or lose nobly.

Agree, there is only one way and we have no choice. 

Just like the Israelis  - > fight back with vigor and furor or get killed.


I listen to most of his podcasts.

His family disowns Victor because they are Leftists and think he has hurt the family name.  I think he even stated his own twin as well.

He lost a daughter to leukemia, I think.

Very nice, classy man.

[Crafty_Dog]

That has to be tough.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://x.com/adambeis/status/1851856421660278903

[ccp]

here they come.   I could just picture Elias Tribe and Obama addressing their army and saying :

It all is all up to you now!

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=W4sHAQJu&id=61497A94EDE5E061E494A837D9F7A697CB5FFBEB&thid=OIP.W4sHAQJu_EEnt9IbuYMTOwAAAA&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.miraheze.org%2Fallthetropeswiki%2F0%2F08%2FMarching_lawyers_3144.jpg&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.5b8b0701026efc4127b7d21bb983133b%3Frik%3D6%252ftfy5em99k3qA%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=262&expw=350&q=army+of+lawyers&simid=608017720493029633&FORM=IRPRST&ck=5BCE1D5EC5DBE235826B4F2CEB474DE2&selectedIndex=1&itb=0&cw=967&ch=537&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

------

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=1r4Cy2Zw&id=F780BAF74209B85BA0BD278AD310D0715CE3942D&thid=OIP.1r4Cy2ZwDs-KaAEPT-E9MAAAAA&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.d6be02cb66700ecf8a68010f4fe13d30%3Frik%3DLZTjXHHQENOKJw%26riu%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252f3.bp.blogspot.com%252f-nl_bEbFt_K4%252fUXk4pFcHzCI%252fAAAAAAAAH6E%252fTtT3V0e4Hxs%252fs1600%252farmy%252bof%252blawyers.JPG%26ehk%3DrNHcklm7KBMuFr7KY5OwSbrcdPZucpLrZac8wYwE7TA%253d%26risl%3D%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0%26sres%3D1%26sresct%3D1%26srh%3D799%26srw%3D1160&exph=253&expw=367&q=army+of+lawyers&simid=608032456499947580&FORM=IRPRST&ck=C5A46A575768F7D8F0ED75D76B9995A9&selectedIndex=3&itb=0&cw=967&ch=537&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

------------

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=Z5a3bfFk&id=CF34B0DAF2E694511788CAFA1A1CAD85D08D244F&thid=OIP.Z5a3bfFkadDAsYcOE5Bu6gHaEK&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fpi0dayYjB1M%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.6796b76df16469d0c0b1870e13906eea%3Frik%3DTySN0IWtHBr6yg%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=720&expw=1280&q=army+of+lawyers&simid=607998423189166715&FORM=IRPRST&ck=8FB5643BE054D30285DB9070BEEB72D3&selectedIndex=2&itb=0&cw=967&ch=537&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

[DougMacG]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/11/06/mark_penn_democrats_must_understand_trump_won_and_stand_down_their_lawfare.html


[Doug] Stand down isn't in their DNA.

[ccp]

" Stand down isn't in their DNA "

And not all ideological either  - think of the ocean liners full of money they make from the DC etc gigs.

[ccp]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna178930

wow

this is a shock.

[Body-by-Guinness]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/11/06/mark_penn_democrats_must_understand_trump_won_and_stand_down_their_lawfare.html


[Doug] Stand down isn't in their DNA.

Standing down would require them to look at how their tactics lead to the outcomes they see as horrifying. An honest review of their tactics would require that they acknowledge the hypocrisy, falsehoods, hubris, illegality, and politics of personal destruction they tightly embraced. and gazing into that mirror would reveal a root ugliness they can’t bear to behold. Thus the worst of ‘em will stay the course, double down where they can, and hopefully serve to shine a light on the ugliness embrace of “Progressive” Puritanism leads to, while the ones lead astray by egalitarian pie in the sky and related sophistries sold to ‘em will find a mental fetal position from which to fend off the cognitive dissonance coming their way. Hopefully they will eventually note the prevarications, lawfare, unlawful, and unconstitutional tenets and actions they’ve been fed for what they are and eventually and likely partially come around.

[Body-by-Guinness]

As this piece argues here:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/11/resistance-lawfare-abusers-must-be-held-accountable/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=resistance-lawfare-abusers-must-be-held-accountable

[Crafty_Dog]

I am torn on this-- certainly these folks deserve the Rule of Law be applied to them, but OTOH I wonder about the political capital that this will cost.

Perhaps this should be left to a well chosen Attorney General?

[Body-by-Guinness]

I am torn on this-- certainly these folks deserve the Rule of Law be applied to them, but OTOH I wonder about the political capital that this will cost.

Perhaps this should be left to a well chosen Attorney General?

I could live with that, or some sort of truth seeking commission that would waive any sort of prosecution/penalty if full and unambiguous testimony is provided. I don't want to be draconian, but unvarnished accountability should be the bare minimum expected or accepted.

But those that thumb their nose at whatever is created should be landed on. Hard. A smart AG would figure out who was the weakest, most arrogant, polemic link out there and make an example of 'em, then wait for the rest to trample each other as they try to get in line to cop to their acts and avoid a similar fate.

[Crafty_Dog]

Well said.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Trump will have to be careful here—the left will twist his every action—but the scope of the effort to sideline him by any means they could get away with needs to be known:

Hit the Road, Jack. But Don't Go Too Far
After spending at least $50 million in tax dollars to bring two unprecedented indictments against Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith should get his turn under prying eyes.

JULIE KELLY
NOV 07, 2024


Jack Smith lurched into a Washington courtroom in September, fully aware all eyes had turned to him.

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

Surrounded by a team of federal prosecutors and guarded by a government-paid security detail, Smith, a lanky man with a scruffy beard and ill-fitting suit, stood behind the government’s table with arms folded. He slowly turned around with a partial scowl to appraise the audience—mostly reporters and D.C. residents eager to watch the restart of his January 6-related case against Donald Trump—to make sure he was noticed. He did not speak during the proceedings.

That appearance, perhaps unbeknownst to him at the time, looks like Smith’s last time in a federal courtroom as the special counsel prosecuting Trump. Citing Department of Justice rules that prohibit the prosecution of a sitting president, Smith reportedly is working with his bosses at the DOJ to figure out how to drop both the D.C. case and the classified documents in case in Florida; Smith has appealed Judge Aileen Cannon’s order dismissing the indictment based on the special counsel’s unconstitutional appointment.

The move represents another political fatality tied to Trump’s resounding victory on Tuesday. It also represents another humiliating defeat for the man the media portrayed as a steely war-crimes prosecutor plucked off a high profile international trial at the Hague by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to finally realize a longtime DOJ dream: put Donald Trump behind bars.

Stone Cold Loser Loses Again

But the hagiography about Smith—reporters swooned over the silent-type injured triathlete, even covering his stop at a DC sandwich shop in 2023 as “breaking news”—never matched his record. The Supreme Court in 2016 unanimously vacated the bribery conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, a case brought by Smith when he led the DOJ’s public corruption office during the Obama administration. Following Smith’s appointment, McDonnell told Mark Levin that Smith would “rather win than get it right.”

Smith, however, usually does neither. In fact, his prosecutorial resume is a long list of courtroom losses, which makes one wonder why Garland chose him for the job. (More here).

Smith failed to win a single conviction in his prosecution of former Senator John Edwards on campaign finance charges in 2012. One DOJ watchdog group slammed Smith for using an “overly aggressive approach” in pursuing Obama’s 2008 Democratic primary rival and for relying on a “novel interpretation of campaign finance laws” to put Edwards behind bars.

It is an approach he repeated in his two unprecedented criminal indictments of Trump. The four counts in his J6-related case rely on vague conspiracy and obstruction statutes; two of the charges involve 18 USC 1512(c)(2), the post-Enron tampering with documents statute. In June, the Supreme Court reversed how the DOJ had applied that law in hundreds of January 6 cases and the court would have reached the same conclusion about Smith’s interpretation of the law if the case ever made it there.

In fact, the court this year rebuked Smith twice—by denying his highly unusual request to bypass the D.C. appellate court to immediately consider the presidential immunity question and by rendering its landmark decision in Trump v US, which largely gutted the J6 indictment.

Evidence of Misconduct in Classified Docs Case Demands Investigation

Smith’s classified documents case consisted of a hodgepodge of allegations about Trump’s possession of alleged national defense papers after he left office and accusations that he and two aides attempted to obstruct the investigation, which began in February 2022. But the DOJ’s handling of the case represents the best opportunity for a Trump DOJ to turn the tables and investigate main Justice and Special Counsel’s office for numerous offenses.

The case was tainted from the start. Although the alleged crimes occurred in Palm Beach, the DOJ conducted the entire investigation in the Trump-hating courthouse in Washington. This permitted unabashed Trump hater Chief Judge Beryl Howell to act as a rubber stamp for the DOJ’s requests including authorizing grand jury subpoenas and piercing attorney-client privilege claims between Trump and his lawyer, Evan Corcoran, under the rarely-used crime fraud exception.

Smith transferred the case to the proper jurisdiction in southern Florida at the last minute to get an indictment and then ran into a buzzsaw named Judge Aileen Cannon.

Thanks to Cannon’s fierceness—her concerns over the dirty nature of the case dates back to September 2022 when she appointed a third party to vet the items collected during the FBI’s armed raid of Mar-a-Lago the month before—the special counsel’s office was forced to disclose instances of tampering with and perhaps destroying evidence, intimidating witnesses, withholding discovery, and misleading the court.

Court proceedings also revealed egregious misconduct related to the unprecedented armed raid of Mar-a-Lago; agents working out of the Washington and Miami FBI field offices breached the broad terms of the search warrant by ransacking the bedrooms of Melania and Barron Trump. The FBI’s plan included the bureau’s use of lethal force policy, underscoring the excessiveness of the raid, which was altogether unnecessary considering Trump and his lawyers had been cooperating with authorities for months.

Prosecutors later admitted in court that some of the records seized during the raid were not properly handled by investigators; defense attorneys claimed documents were missing.

Defense attorneys also obtained communications between the DOJ, the National Archives, and the Biden White House that demonstrated a behind-the-scenes effort to concoct a documents case as early as May 2021. A Trump DOJ should haul before a grand jury everyone from Biden’s general counsel Jonathan Su to deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco and top NARA officials involved in the scheme.

Conspiracy to defraud, anyone?

Show Us the Money

A full-blown audit into the special counsel’s expenditures should be conducted by either a Trump DOJ or a Republican Congress. Smith’s prosecutors often bragged about “the permanent, indefinite appropriation for independent counsels” allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 591 note, a claim Judge Cannon also doubted.

According to required financial reports, Smith’s team spent at least $35 million in the first 14 months of his investigation, a figure that includes additional support from main Justice. But those costs only cover the period from November 2022 through March 2024; it’s likely Smith blew through another $15 million or so over the last several months, bringing the total to over $50 million.

Expenses include a protective detail for Smith; travel expenses; and millions in unspecified “contractual services.”

Time to see who and what companies profited off the special counsel grift.

Weak Republicans in Congress undoubtedly will resist efforts to investigate and audit Smith but Trump should ignore them.

The American people—as well as Trump himself and his co-defendants—deserve a full accounting of this dirty, rogue, secretive process. And Smith and his accomplices need to be held accountable.

https://www.declassified.live/p/hit-the-road-jack-but-dont-go-too

[DougMacG]

https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/12/jack-smith-ditching-his-case-against-trump-is-not-a-concession-its-a-coverup/

[Body-by-Guinness]

Trump, the Senior Exectutive Service, & (hopefully) rippiing the Deep State out by its roots:

Never Underestimate the Power of Unfinished Business
Take Schedule F, for example

ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS
NOV 12, 2024

The fathomless bottom of the deep state.

The Senior Executive Service (SES) class of federal employees was created under President Carter through the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The SES was established to “...ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.” Another Carter-created component of the State, as is the Department of Education. The SES employees were supposed to ensure top performances in all the various agencies. That was the theory, but the reality is something entirely different, as is so often the case with these initiatives such as the “Department of Homeland Security”.

Members of the SES serve in the key positions just below the top Presidential appointees. SES employees are the major link between these appointees and the rest of the Federal workforce. They operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies. They are referred to as members by the Office of Personnel Management and are considered above “employee” designation. They are members of the SES, and don’t you forget that! Today’s SES runs the country.

The SES even has its own flag (which has been largely removed from the government webpages since I last wrote about the SES in June of 2022). and their own non-profit agency called the Senior Executive Association (SEA), whose stated goal is to protect the rights of SES members - which lists both lobbying Congress and instituting legal action to protect SES member status. This non-profit acts like a union.


SES members operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies and serve in key positions just below the top Presidential appointees. Thus positioned, the SES bosses enforce political orthodoxy and fidelity to the deep state. They can act in this manner because their employment is virtually guaranteed. An SES employee’s job is so secure that an Agency Head cannot terminate an SES employee unless the Commissioner issues a certificate stating that the termination is in the public interest. Even then, the termination is subject to litigation.

Barack Obama believed that the SES program should be expanded and, through a 2015 executive order, “Strengthening the Senior Executive Service,” sought to expand and “facilitate career executive continuity between administrations.” But more than that, his executive order implemented:

“a comprehensive, integrated, and strategic focus on diversity and inclusion as a key component of the recruitment, hiring, retention, and development of their SES cadre.”

Yep - the federal government has been using DEI-based hiring and promotions for the SES instead of merit, well… ever since Obama’s presidency.

By May 31, 2016, agencies with 20 or more SES positions were tasked with developing a plan “to increase the number of SES members who are rotating to improve talent development, mission delivery, and collaboration.”

Obama’s other objective, other than securing more DEI employees, was to secure more loyal troops for the administration of his chosen successor, Hillary Clinton. Luckily, she then lost to Donald Trump. However, the increased number of SES employees, strengthening their stranglehold on government power and over the presidency, remained.

As it turns out, the Justice Department includes those elite, highly paid bosses from the Senior Executive Service. So does the Department of Homeland Security, from which the SES also deploys personnel into the Secret Service. As does just about every agency in the US government. As of 2018, there were almost 8,000 SES employees.

The other important point about the SES is that the president has no role in choosing them; he can’t re-assign them or fire them. The SES comprises the non-transparent group of managers and elites who run the country from within. They are the employees who quietly block, slow-walk, and defer presidential orders. What President Trump and Kash Patel might call the “deep state.” In effect, our democracy has been turned upside down while being captured by bureaucratic and corporate interests that endorse authoritarian policies - hence, we are now living under a system of “inverted totalitarianism.” The United States has been co-opted into a managed democracy, thanks to Carter and Obama.

President Trump was stymied in his efforts to reform the government due to the SES cadre, and then he finally hit upon a solution. That is an executive order known as “Schedule F,” which he signed in October 2020, just prior to leaving office. Biden canceled the Schedule F executive order on the first day of his presidency.

This new employee classification system would have included federal workers in "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character," which are "not normally subject to change as the result of a presidential transition."

The “Schedule F” executive order would have allowed agencies to reclassify policy jobs under a new employment schedule and had proposed to give senior managers greater flexibility in hiring candidates and firing employees. Hence, the SES employees would have functionally become “at will” employees. At-will employment means that an employer can dismiss an employee for any reason, without having to establish "just cause" for termination, as long as the reason is not illegal. At-will employment is the law of the land in all states except Montana.

President Trump stated that this executive order would be reinstated on day one.

But not so fast!

On January 22, 2021, shortly after taking office, President Biden repealed the Schedule F executive order. This action prevented Schedule F from being implemented, as it had not yet taken effect when Trump left office.

In September 2023, the Biden administration, through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), began working on new regulations to make it difficult to reintroduce Schedule F policies.

On April 4, 2024, OPM issued a final rule aimed at stopping potential future attempts to implement Schedule F or something similar. This rule ensured that the new civil service job protections couldn't be removed by reimplementing schedule F.

However, all of these political machinations may come to naught.

Remember the Chevron deference?

The Chevron deference was a key principle in U.S. administrative law for nearly 40 years, established by the Supreme Court in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. It directed courts to defer to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers.

This doctrine significantly empowered federal agencies by giving them considerable leeway in interpreting and implementing ambiguous statutory provisions. It essentially allowed the administrative state to create laws without congressional oversight.

However, in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court ruled that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency's interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.

The end of Chevron Deference represents a major shift in administrative law, reducing the power of federal agencies and increasing judicial scrutiny of agency actions. One of the the implications of the Chevron deference is the reduced power for federal agencies in interpreting laws.

How does this affect schedule F?

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) may need to provide more robust justifications for its new policies regarding Schedule F, as they can no longer rely on the Chevron deference to support their interpretations of federal employment laws.

The truth is that as soon as President Trump implements Schedule F, the Senior Executives Association may challenge it in court, and the OPM will use their new rules to fight it tooth and nail.

Due to the Chevron deference, this legal fight may be aborted or short-circuited. Time will tell.

On the Legislative side

In 2023, the House adopted an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill for 2023 that would prevent future administrations from reviving Schedule F or similar measures. However, during the reconciliation process between the House and Senate versions of the bill, the Schedule F ban was omitted from the final compromise version. The final version of the 2023 NDAA that was signed into law did not include the language banning future attempts at creating Schedule F, but congress may pull those clauses out of the Democrat party bag of tricks at any time.

The easiest way out of this quandary in the long term is for Congress to amend the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 to clarify the role of the SES employee and other employees within the federal government. This would be a permanent solution instead of a temporary bandaid.

https://www.malone.news/p/never-underestimate-the-power-of

[Crafty_Dog]

Goodjob by Malone of going into the weeds on this vital issue.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Looks like the FEMA directive to not aid hurricane victims with Trump yard signs came from higher up:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/11/rep-steube-alleged-text-messages-from-dc-to-fema-directing-them-to-skip-trump-supporters/

ETA: more here: https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/11/12/fired-fema-official-not-helping-trump-voters-was-fema-policy-in-north-carolina-too-n3796922

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14069059/fema-worker-marni-washington-fired-breaks-silence-trump-voting-hurricane-victims.html

[Body-by-Guinness]

So what says the hive mind? Will Smith go out with a whimper or instead try to further impugn Trump by indicting “co-conspirators?

https://www.newsweek.com/jack-smith-resign-before-trump-office-1984953?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1731496854

At the end of the day it’s clear to me his specific goal was to keep Trump from being reelected. He not only failed that task, but arguably enhanced Trump’s chances by so clearly seeking to drop his thumb on justice’s scale. Perhaps that is so obvious he is unable to escape it, but my guess is he’s an ideologue attack dog and will go out with his teeth gnashing.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Florida's Lawsuit Against FEMA Over Discrimination Against Trump Supporters

The Volokh Conspiracy / by Eugene Volokh / Nov 14, 2024 at 3:16 PM

You can read the Complaint (filed yesterday) in Moody v. Criswell (S.D. Fla.); there are all sorts of interesting federal civil rights litigation and federal courts issues, such as parens patriae, the scope of § 1985(3) liability, the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, and more. And of course the case raises the factual question of whether the discrimination was the work of a rogue employee (as FEMA seems to argue) or was endorsed by higher ups (as the employee has claimed, and as Florida is asserting). An excerpt from the Complaint:

"[A]void homes advertising Trump." This was the directive that Defendant Marn'i Washington gave to federal relief workers responding to Hurricanes Helene and Milton in Lake Placid, Florida.

While the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has fired Defendant Washington and called her behavior "reprehensible," Defendant Washington insists that she is a "patsy" and that FEMA made her a "scapegoat." Defendant Washington says that similar conduct occurred in North Carolina and throughout areas affected by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. And she represents that senior FEMA officials claiming not to know that the agency was discriminating against Trump supporters are promoting a "lie."

While the facts will continue to come out over the weeks and months, it is already clear that Defendant Washington conspired with senior FEMA officials, as well as those carrying out her orders, to violate the civil rights of Florida citizens.  This conspiracy is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, which creates a cause of action for "[c]onspiracy to interfere with civil rights." See Smith v. Meese, 821 F.2d 1484, 1492 n.5 (11th Cir. 1987) (suggesting that "selectively enforc[ing] a law" by "prosecuting only Republicans" would violate § 1985 (quotations omitted)); accord Lyes v. City of Riviera Beach, 166 F.3d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (discussing legislative history suggesting that "actionable conspiracies" under § 1985 "would include those against a person because he was a Democrat" (quotations omitted)); United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Loc. 610, AFL-CIO v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 836 (1983) (suggesting that § 1985(3) "was intended to" protect "Republicans" because Republicans "championed the[] cause" of Black Americans after the Civil War).

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody sues Defendants under § 1985(3). See Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592, 607 (1982) (recognizing a State's ability to sue in a parens patriae capacity based on discrimination against its residents); Abrams v. 11 Cornwell Co., 695 F.2d 34, 38–40 (2d Cir. 1982) (applying Alfred L. Snapp to a claim under § 1985(3)), vacated in part on other grounds, 718 F.2d 22, 25 (2d Cir. 1983).

General Moody seeks nominal damages, punitive damages, and a declaration that Defendants conspired to interfere with the civil rights of Florida citizens.

I'm not an expert on the federal statutory questions here (or on the parens patriae doctrine), and I'm too slammed right now to research further, so I thought I'd just pass along the Complaint, which sets forth the state's argument; I'll also pass along any motion to dismiss when and if that's filed.

The one thing I can say substantively is that, even if FEMA employees had faced hostility  from some conservative or pro-Trump householders, that can't justify an "avoid homes advertising Trump" directive—just as the misconduct of some Jews or Catholics couldn't justify an "avoid homes displaying mezuzahs or crucifixes" directive, or the hostility of some Black Lives Matter supporters to the police couldn't justify the police denying services to homes displaying Black Lives Matter flags.

The post Florida's Lawsuit Against FEMA Over Discrimination Against Trump Supporters appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/11/14/floridas-lawsuit-against-fema-over-discrimination-against-trump-supporters/

[Crafty_Dog]

From here in the bleachers, I can't say I am confident he is innocent.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/i-am-going-to-prison-steve-bannon-faces-more-criminal-charges/ss-AA1u7bOC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=8937f0ef1f8140029e62c2e00e14eb73&ei=18

[ccp]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/donald-trump-jr-new-york-da/2024/11/22/id/1189089/

I can't believe we are even talking about this nonsense anymore?

No case, never was, twisting of a Fed law in a state jurisdiction, by a Dem prosecutor who was out to get Trump, in front of a Dem majority jury, in front of a Dem judge in a Dem city.

[ccp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5TeFSqj21Y

on Schiff who took his courses from LLL little Larry lib:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowtiz-adam-schiff-donald-trump/2024/11/26/id/1189489/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://dailycaller.com/2024/12/03/chris-cuomo-stephen-a-smith-biden-pardon-trump/

https://dailycaller.com/2024/12/02/no-moral-choice-dershowitz-says-biden-must-pardon-jan-6-protesters-after-granting-son-hunter-clemency/

https://dailycaller.com/2024/12/02/what-does-that-feel-like-cnn-host-makes-dem-rep-watch-video-of-himself-saying-biden-would-never-pardon-hunter/

[Crafty_Dog]

A National Treasury Employees Union spokesman said the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division and Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) will begin votes to unionize on 12 December. (The unionization votes are scheduled to end on 8 and 9 January. However, disputes over the votes could push certification months past Trump’s 20 January inauguration, giving Trump time to reimplement “Schedule F” allowing the Trump administration to fire the DOJ employees. – R.C.)

[Crafty_Dog]

(2) CURRENT AND FORMER DOJ OFFICIALS PREPARE LEGAL DEFENSE: Defense attorneys said they have fielded calls from current and former Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, career federal prosecutors, and FBI agents over concerns that the incoming Trump administration will target them with investigations. Sara Kropf, a partner at law firm Kropf Moseley, said criminal prosecutions are unlikely due to a higher burden of proof but the incoming Trump administration could use “the low hanging fruit” of DOJ Inspector General investigations against current and former DOJ officials to “destroy their career prospects.” (The high cost of legal defense was weaponized against Trump administration officials during Trump’s first term. Current and former Biden DOJ officials are concerned they will face high legal defense costs, and are in talks with defense lawyers over free and discounted legal representation. – R.C.)

[Crafty_Dog]

https://dailycaller.com/2024/12/19/fani-willis-disqualified-prosecuting-trump-case/

[Body-by-Guinness]

https://dailycaller.com/2024/12/19/fani-willis-disqualified-prosecuting-trump-case/

More on this, with a lot of quotes from the decision, here:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2024/12/19/fani-willis-disqualified-n2649305

[Body-by-Guinness]

Former DOJ officials violating rules, regs, & ethics, with the walls (hopefully) closing in:

https://nypost.com/2024/12/30/us-news/three-senior-doj-officials-leaked-non-public-investigative-information-days-before-an-election-inspector-general-finds/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=nypost&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1Tb_P1hQBFs-tHMw0OKUNeK5el_WPKsGrnL32zv8D9PdenBMDFvCt2384_aem_a3tMV6-RPizMsnYkSPNGCQ

[Crafty_Dog]

Pundits and historians will be a long time sorting out the magnitude of Donald Trump’s electoral victory but one thing already is clear: Trump not only triumphed in the presidential contest, he also won the lawfare war. The latter—a victory for the constitutional foundation of the country —may prove as consequential as the former.

“Lawfare” is political war fought by other means: partisan warfare conducted in the courts and the media. Trump spent the entire Biden presidency battling lawfare cases brought by  Democrat-allied prosecutors and judges—by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis, New York State Attorney General Letitia James, New York judges Juan Merchan and Arthur Engoron, and others.

Trump fought back in the courts and in the court of public opinion. His election win not only deals death blows to the Democrat-aligned lawfare cases, but possibly to the practice of lawfare itself. Let’s take a moment to survey the legal landscape:

Jack Smith Goes Down

In November 2022, President Joe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, appointed prosecutor Jack Smith as special counsel for two Justice Department investigations: the January 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol, and separately, alleged Trump mishandling of classified documents. It was a particularly brazen lawfare move because by that time, the outline of the 2024 presidential contest was clear: Donald Trump was the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination and Joe Biden was signaling that he would run for re-election. The Biden Justice Department investigating the GOP presidential candidate seemed an outlandish and illegal proposition, but Garland and Smith pressed on. In July, Judge Aileen Cannon had seen enough and dismissed the classified documents case on the grounds that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed. In November, after the election, the Justice Department threw in the towel, moving to drop all January 6 charges against Trump on the grounds that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. Trump rightfully claimed victory. “I persevered, against all odds, and WON,” he wrote on Truth Social. He added, “These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought,”

Bragg’s New York Criminal Case in Death Spiral

Deep blue New York produced a cadre of lawfare warriors in pursuit of the once and future Republican president. One of its chief combatants was Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, who campaigned for office on an anti-Trump platform, reminding voters that he had “sued Trump more than a hundred times.” Before charging Trump in April 2023 with thirty-four felony counts of falsifying business records—generally a low-level misdemeanor—Bragg had led a civil lawsuit against the Trump Foundation and criminal cases against the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer. Trump was convicted in May on the business records charges, but his lawyers are asking that the case be thrown out on numerous grounds, including that any sentencing would unconstitutionally interfere with Trump’s conduct of a second term in the presidency. Bragg recently petitioned the court to put the case on ice for the entirety of Trump’s second president term—a move the Trump team ridiculed as “a total failure of the prosecution” signaling that the case is “effectively over.”

Lawfare Judges Under Pressure

Presiding over the flurry of appeals in the business-records case is Justice Juan Merchan, another New Yorker with a lawfare pedigree. Earlier this month, Merchan threw out Trump’s appeal to dismiss the case on the basis of presidential immunity. Like most New York judges, Merchan rose through the ranks of the Democratic Party’s political machine, which plays a significant role in state judicial appointments. Before becoming a judge, Merchan served as a prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office and worked for the New York attorney general. In 2006, Mayor Michael Bloomberg appointed him to a family court judgeship, and he was elevated to criminal court in 2009. In July, Merchan received a “caution letter” from the New York Commission of Judicial Conduct warning him about donations to Joe Biden and other Democratic causes. Merchan’s daughter, Loren, is president of the left-wing digital advertising firm, Authentic Campaigns. Juan Merchan will have plenty of power over the Trump appeals in the coming months, but he will not have the final word. Trump can appeal to higher New York courts and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump also faced a high-stakes legal assault from New York State Attorney General Letitia James in a civil fraud case presided over by Justice Arthur Engoron. James and Engoron both came up through the progressive ranks of the New York Democratic Party. Like Alvin Bragg, James used Trump as a punching bag in her campaign for political office. She denounced Trump as an “illegitimate president” and vowed to “shine a bright light into every corner of his real estate dealings.” Engoron, a longtime Democrat, protested the Vietnam War at Columbia University and has been a member of the ACLU for three decades. Engoron presided over a non-jury civil fraud trial related to real-estate valuations by the Trump Organization and stunned legal observers on both sides of the political aisle in February with a guilty verdict ordering Trump to pay a staggering $335 million penalty—plus rapidly growing interest and additional fines. Trump immediately vowed an appeal and at a September hearing, New York appellate judges signaled skepticism about the Engoron ruling.

 The Georgia Case Collapses

Meanwhile, in Georgia, Fulton County DA Fani Willis’s case against Trump for allegedly conspiring to change the outcome of the 2020 election has collapsed. A state appeals court removed Willis and her entire office from the Trump prosecution over a conflict of interest involving a romantic relationship between Willis and another member of her team. The Georgia Court of Appeals panel said the “appearance of impropriety” was so powerful that “this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.” Willis, a longtime Democrat, can appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, but the legal tides are running against her. Trump’s Georgia lawyer issued a statement saying that the decision “puts an end to a politically motivated persecution of the next President of the United States.”

Judicial Watch has been investigating the lawfare against Trump for years. Our own Tom Fitton was dragged into a Jack Smith grand jury for, as he noted on X, “four hours of harassing questions about First Amendment-protected activity and debates about electors, tweets, what I ate for lunch at the White House, and whether I watched Trump’s election night speech. It was all about politics.”

At Judicial Watch, we continue to closely track lawfare developments, push for more accountability, and report to the public. Among our recent moves, we’re seeking a special master in our lawsuit for Fani Willis’s communication with lawfare warriors Jack Smith and the House January 6 Committee; earlier this month, Willis admitted communicating with the January 6 Committee, but released only a one already public letter.  In February, we protested a Biden Administration move to keep secret the names of top Jack Smith staff. In 2023, we sued the Justice Department for records of funding and assistance between Smith’s office and Willis’s office, and we obtained information showing Manhattan DA Bragg hiring high-priced lawyers to beat back Congressional inquiries into his Trump prosecutions.

There’s more to come. Stay tuned.

[ccp]

to run around our nation's laws:

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2024/12/30/mexico-sending-hundreds-lawyers-aid-illegal-migrants-u-s-a/

[Body-by-Guinness]

Vid displays the relationships between a "Progressive" legal NGO, its funding sources, and those who they fund. Interestingly, they give funds to the people that fund them, which doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense unless you are seeking to hopelessly tangle the money in the hope of making your finances difficult to unravel:

https://rumble.com/v64v8q1-who-funds-the-national-womens-law-center.html

[Body-by-Guinness]

Interesting thread letting us peak behind the curtain where Soros, sundry prosecutors, and NGOs and their various funding & policy circle jerks:

@PeterBernegger

George Soros in Oshkosh Wisconsin. Surprise ending -

This is a doozy of a story, national in scope; might take 30 tweets.
 
George Soros is controlling Winnebago County, WI District Attorney Eric D. Sparr through the Fair and Just Prosecution non-profit ("FJP").
I call for the resignation of Eric Sparr, and you will see why from the 471 emails I obtained from his office.

This is national in scope; upwards of 70 local district attorneys are being controlled by FJP.

Media Research Center ("MCR") did a great job of exposing this, where they found: “[FJP] directed Soros prosecutors to manipulate the rule of law concerning illegal immigration, drugs, abortion, election integrity, capital punishment and laws against childhood sex changes.”
@theMRC

Breaking: FJP is funded in part by George Soros....but the big funding is coming from YOU the taxpayer, via the US Treasury!
FJP had these Soros-backed attorneys sign 33 pledges to not enforce certain laws — including election integrity measures and immigration laws.

“directed Soros prosecutors to manipulate the rule of law concerning illegal immigration, drugs, abortion, election integrity, capital punishment and laws against childhood sex changes.”

MRC’s yearlong investigation suggests that Soros maintained influence over his chosen candidates after their elections were over. FJP had the Soros-backed attorneys sign 33 pledges to not enforce certain laws — including election integrity measures and immigration laws — and attend more than 50 meetings or “convenings,” some of which were “mandatory.”

FJP pressed prosecutors to let criminals off the hook if they are black, having them pledge to “reduc[e] racial disparities in case outcomes by at least 20%.”

Let's start with the money: see the third image here? It is from the Tides Center's website. FJP admits they get their funding from the Tides Center. The image here shows in fact FJP is a partner of the Tides Center.

The Tides Network contains five separate legal entities: Tides Center, Tides Advocacy, Tides Foundation, Tides Two Rivers Fund, and Tides Inc., per the NGO Monitor.
Funding       
 
In 2022, the Tides Network’s total revenue was $674.1 million; total expenses  (primarily grants and awards) were $1 billion.

In 2021, Tides received $25.8 million from the Open Society Foundation.

In 2019-2021, the Tides Network received $44,980 from the New Israel Fund.

In 2023-2026, the Tides Center received $540,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, of which American NGO Palestine Legal received $240,000 and the Adalah Justice Project received $300,000.

Miriam Krinsky is the Executive Director of Fair and Just Prosecution, beginning in 2023. But before that she was the Executive Director of the Tides Center. Back in 2008 she worked for UCLA - as a lecturer yet she was/is not a professor.

She makes $745,962 per year, you're paying for most of that.

I know that because FJP gets their funding from the Tides Center as mentioned. The Tides Center got much of their funding from the federal government. $31.2 million in federal government grants in 2022.

FJP even controls what Eric Sparr posts on the Winnebago County government website, have a look at one of the 471 emails:
"Good morning, Eric- hope you had a nice weekend! Circling back to confirm we can definitely make that adjustment to the quote and will hold on to that language from your social media post for future use (we often need good thoughts like that!).

Thank you again for bringing your voice to this effort, and I hope you have a swell week,

Calvin

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:48 AM Sparr, Eric <Eric.Sparr@da.wi.gov> wrote:

Hello, thank you!  I hope things are well with you too.

I would be comfortable with the draft statement, other than I would want the word “inhumane” removed.

Also, below is what we put out on social media when we did the tours, so feel free to use any of this:

“As prosecutors, we hear about bad things every day. There are not a lot of police reports about people doing great, responsible, pro-social activities. We regularly see people placed in jail or prison, and make recommendations for those things as well. We do this from the relative safety and sterility of an office or a courtroom. There is always a risk that prosecutors, like some other players in the criminal justice system, could become desensitized to the magnitude, the emotions, and the reality of some of the decisions that we have to make. Seeing the impact of our decisions firsthand helps to make sure that we do not lose this perspective. That is why I have pushed an expectation that prosecutors in the Winnebago County District Attorney’s Office, on an annual basis, will be visiting institutions where the people we prosecute are sent, or doing police ride-alongs to see with our own eyes what we often merely read about in police reports.”

Thanks,

Eric

From: Calvin Jordan <cjordan@fairandjustprosecution.org>
 Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 9:44 AM
 To: Sparr, Eric <Eric.Sparr@da.wi.gov>
 Cc: Miriam Krinsky <krinskym@krinsky.la>; Amy Fettig <afettig@fairandjustprosecution.org>; Alyssa Kress <akress@fairandjustprosecution.org>

 Subject: Quote for FJP Prison Visit Pledge Press Release

You don't often get email from cjordan@fairandjustprosecution.org.   Learn   why this is important

Good morning, DA Sparr- happy Friday, and I hope all is well!

Within the next week or so, we'll reissue the prison visit pledge you've signed onto and we'd love to bring your voice to a quote for FJP's press release, if you're interested. We've drafted the quote below but welcome any edits you may have:

“Prosecutors have an obligation to acknowledge the often deeply disturbing realities of incarceration if they are truly committed to the pursuit of justice. Seeing firsthand some of the inhumane conditions we subject people to in these facilities emphasizes why we must urgently end our overreliance on incarceration and embrace new visions for public safety, accountability and rehabilitation."

A full draft of the release is attached; please let us know whether you're on board with the quote or if you have any questions.
Thanks in advance for your consideration of this request, as well as for signing on the pledge again!

Cheers,

Calvin
--
Calvin Jordan (he/him)
Communications Manager
Fair and Just Prosecution
cjordan@fairandjustprosecution.org | (954) 682-3998"

Based on documents I have Winnebago County District Attorney Eric D. Sparr has withheld numerous public records I requested from him.
If an official intentionally destroys, conceals, or alters records to avoid disclosure, they may face criminal charges under Wis. Stat. § 946.72, which prohibits tampering with public records.

Eric Sparr was appointed Winnebago County District Attorney in 2022 by liberal governor Tony Evers.
Wait till you see all the district attorneys across the nation who signed pledges to FJP. Working for Soros, not us the people.
Much more coming on all this....

[Body-by-Guinness]

Here’s what happens when you are charged with securing a conviction at any (constitutional) cost, regardless of whether it will survive scrutiny by a higher court:

How Jack Smith destroyed his own case against Trump

BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 01/11/25 10:30 AM ET

The expected release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report will occur as early as this weekend, albeit without those sections dealing with the Florida documents case. (Other defendants are still facing prosecution in that case.) However, the most glaring omission will be arguably an explanation of how Smith lost this war without firing a single shot in a trial.

After more than two years, two separate cases and countless appeals (not to mention more than $50 million spent), Smith left without presenting a single witness, let alone charge, at trial. It is an example of how a general can have the largest army and unlimited resources and yet defeat himself with a series of miscalculations.

History probably won’t be kind to Smith, whose record bespeaks a “parade general” — a prosecutor who offered more pretense than progress in the prosecution of an American president.

Indeed, this report will be one of Smith’s last chances to display a case that notably never got close to an actual trial. One-sided and unfiltered, it will have all of the thrill of a Sousa march of a regiment in full dress. We know because we have seen much of this before. At every juncture, Smith has taken his case out on parade in the court of public opinion.

The Smith report will reportedly concern only the Washington case alleging crimes related to Jan. 6 and the 2020 election — a case that was always a bridge too far for Smith.

When first appointed, Smith had a straightforward and relatively easy case to make against Trump over his removal and retention of presidential materials. The case was not without controversy. Some of us questioned the selective nature of the prosecution given past violations by other presidents, particularly as shown by the violations of President Biden going back decades found by another special counsel.

However, the case originally focused on the conspiracy and false statements during the federal investigation into the documents at Mar-a-Lago. Those are well-established crimes that Smith could have brought to trial quickly with a solid shot for conviction.
But Smith’s undoing has always been his appetite. That was evident when he was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court in his case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R).

In Florida, Smith was in signature form. He took a simple case and loaded it up with press-grabbing charges regarding the retention of classified material. In so doing, he slowed the case to a crawl. As a defense lawyer who has handled classified documents cases, I said at the outset that I did not believe he could get this case to a jury before the 2024 election, and that after that election, Smith might not have a case to present. Smith had outmaneuvered himself.

Then came the Washington filing, the subject of this forthcoming report. It was another vintage Smith moment. Smith played to the public in a case that pushed both the Constitution and statutory provisions beyond the breaking point. He simply could not resist, and he was only encouraged after the assignment of Judge Tanya Chutkan, a judge viewed by many as predisposed against Trump.

In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan had said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then, “t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her for trial by Smith.

The D.C. case was doomed from the outset by both a prosecutor and judge who, in their zeal to bag Trump, yielded to every temptation. As time ticked away, Smith became almost apoplectic in demanding an expedited path to trial, including cutting short appeals. After refusing to recuse herself, Chutkan seemed to indulge Smith at every turn. But the Supreme Court failed to agree that speed should trump substance in such reviews.

With both cases slipping out of his grasp, Smith then threw a final Hail Mary. He asked Chutkan to let him file what was basically a 165-page summary of this report against Trump before the election. There was no apparent reason for the public release of the filing, except to influence the election — a motivation long barred by Justice Department rules.

Chutkan, of course, allowed it anyway, despite admitting that the request was “procedurally irregular.”

It did not work. Although the press and pundits eagerly repeated the allegations in the filing, the public had long ago reached its own conclusion and rendered its own verdict in November.

In my view, Smith’s D.C. case would never have been upheld, even if he had made it to a favorable jury in front of a motivated judge. As established by the court in Trump v. United States, Smith could not rely on much of his complaint due to violating constitutionally protected areas.

Smith responded to the immunity decision again in typical Smith fashion, largely keeping the same claims with minimal changes. His new indictment was to indictments what shrinkflation is to consumer products — the same package with less content. As in the McDonnell case, Smith was going for conviction at all costs, despite a high likelihood of the case eventually being overturned.
Then the public effectively put an end to both cases by electing Trump.

The Smith investigation should be a case study for future prosecutors in what not to do. An abundance of appetite and arrogance can prove as deadly as a paucity of evidence and authority. 

Ironically, Smith will not be the only special counsel offering such a cautionary tale. The report of Special Counsel David Weiss into the Hunter Biden controversy will also be released soon. Weiss was widely denounced for allowing major crimes to lapse against Hunter Biden and offering an embarrassing sweetheart plea deal that collapsed in open court. Ironically, Weiss succeeded by minimizing his charges (for the wrong reason). In that way, Weiss has one claim that Smith does not: He made it to court and secured a conviction. Indeed, he was about to prosecute a second case when President Biden pardoned his son.

Weiss’s report will likely only increase questions over his failure to pursue Hunter more aggressively. For Smith, the question is whether he was too aggressive, to the detriment of his own prosecution.

Prosecutions are not the sole measure of success for a special prosecutor. At times, the report itself can be of equal, if not greater, importance to the public.

This is not one of those cases.

The public will be given Smith’s detailed account of a case that was never brought and would likely never have held up. At more than $50 million, it is arguably the biggest flop since “The Adventures of Pluto Nash.“ The difference is that it did not take more than two years to watch Eddie Murphy’s film disaster, and the actor did not then write up a report on how good the movie really was.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

[DougMacG]

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-felony-prosecutorial-liberalism/

[DougMacG]

https://www.declassified.live/p/jack-smiths-final-stunt

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.roberthjackson.org/speech-and-writing/the-federal-prosecutor/ The Federal Prosecutor
THE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR

BY ROBERT H JACKSON

“The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway.”

It would probably be within the range of that exaggeration permitted in Washington to say that assembled in this room is one of the most powerful peace-time forces known to our country. The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a citizen's friends interviewed. The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial. He may dismiss the case before trial, in which case the defense never has a chance to be heard. Or he may go on with a public trial. If he obtains a conviction, the prosecutor can still make recommendations as to sentence, as to whether the prisoner should get probation or a suspended sentence, and after he is put away, as to whether he is a fit subject for parole. While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.

These powers have been granted to our law-enforcement agencies because it seems necessary that such a power to prosecute be lodged somewhere. This authority has been granted by people who really wanted the right thing done- wanted crime eliminated-but also wanted the best in our American traditions preserved.

Because of this immense power to strike at citizens, not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself, the post of federal district attorney from the very beginning has been safeguarded by presidential appointment, requiring confirmation of the senate of the United States. You are thus required to win an expression of confidence in your character by both the legislative and the executive branches of the government before assuming the responsibilities of a federal prosecutor.

Your responsibility in your several districts for law enforcement and for its methods cannot be wholly surrendered to Washington, and ought not to be assumed by a centralized department of justice. It is an unusual and rare instance in which the local district attorney should be superseded in the handling of litigation, except where be requests help of Washington. It is also clear that with his knowledge of local sentiment and opinion, his contact with and intimate knowledge of the views of the court, and his acquaintance with the feelings of the group from which jurors are drawn, it is an unusual case in which his judgment should be overruled.

Experience, however, has demonstrated that some measure of centralized control is necessary. In the absence of it different district attorneys were striving for different interpretations or applications of an act, or were pursuing different conceptions of policy. Also, to put it mildly, there were differences in the degree of diligence and zeal in different districts. To promote uniformity of policy and action, to establish some standards of performance, and to make available specialized help, some degree of centralized administration was found necessary.

Our problem, of course, is to balance these opposing considerations. I desire to avoid any lessening of the prestige and influence of the district attorneys in their districts. At the same time we must proceed in all districts with that uniformity of policy which is necessary to the prestige of federal law.

Nothing better can come out of this meeting of law enforcement officers than a rededication to the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor. Your positions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done. The lawyer in public office is justified in seeking to leave behind him a good record. But he must remember that his most alert and severe, but just, judges will be the members of his own profession, and that lawyers rest their good opinion of each other not merely on results accomplished but on the quality of the performance. Reputation has been called "the shadow cast by one's daily life." Any prosecutor who risks his day-to-day professional name for fair dealing to build up statistics of success has a perverted sense of practical values, as well as defects of character. Whether one seeks promotion to a. judgeship, as many prosecutors rightly do, or whether he returns to private practice, he can have no better asset than to have his profession recognize that his attitude toward those who feel his power has been dispassionate, reasonable and just.

The federal prosecutor has now been prohibited from engaging in political activities. I am convinced that a good-faith acceptance of the spirit and letter of that doctrine will relieve many district attorneys from the embarrassment of what have heretofore been regarded as legitimate expectations of political service. There can also be no doubt that to be closely identified with the intrigue, the money raising, and the machinery of a particular party or faction may present a prosecuting officer with embarrassing alignments and associations. I think the Hatch Act should be utilized by federal prosecutors as a protection against demands on their time and their prestige to participate in the operation of the machinery of practical politics.

There is a most important reason why the prosecutor should have, as nearly as possible, a detached and impartial view of all groups in his community. Law enforcement is not automatic. It isn't blind. One of the greatest difficulties of the position of prosecutor is that he must pick his cases, because no prosecutor can even investigate all of the eases in which he receives complaints. If the department of justice were to make even a pretense of reaching every probable violation of federal law, ten times its present staff would be inadequate. We know that no local police force can strictly enforce the traffic laws, or it would arrest half the driving population on any given morning, What every prosecutor is practically required to do is to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm-in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.

In times of fear or hysteria· political, racial, religious, social, and economic groups, often from the best of motives, cry for the scalps of individuals or groups because they do not like their views. Particularly do we need to be dispassionate and courageous in those cases which deal with so called "subversive activities." They are dangerous to civil liberty because the prosecutor has no definite standards to determine what constitutes a "subversive activity," such as we have for murder or larceny. Activities which seem benevolent and helpful to wage earners, persons on relief, or those who are disadvantaged in the struggle for existence may be regarded as "subversive" by those whose property interests might be burdened or affected thereby. Those who are in office are apt to regard as "subversive" the activities of any of those who would bring about a change of administration. Some of our soundest constitutional doctrines were once punished as subversive. We must not forget that it was not so long ago that both the term "Republican" and the term "Democrat" were epithets with sinister meaning to denote persons of radical tendencies that were "subversive" of the order of things then dominant.

In the enforcement of laws that protect our national integrity and existence, we should prosecute any and every act of violation, but only overt acts, not the expression of opinion, or activities such as the holding of meetings, petitioning of congress, or dissemination of news or opinions. Only by extreme care can we protect the spirit as well as the letter of our civil liberties, and to do so is a responsibility of the federal prosecutor.

Another delicate task is to distinguish between the federal and the local in law-enforcement activities. We must bear in mind that we are concerned only with the prosecution of acts which the congress has made federal offenses. Those acts we should prosecute regardless of local sentiment, regardless of whether it exposes lax local enforcement, regardless of whether it makes or breaks local politicians.

But outside of federal law each locality has the right under our system of government to fix its own standards of law enforcement and of morals. And the moral climate of the United States is as varied as its physical climate. For example, some states legalize and permit gambling, some states prohibit it legislatively and protect it administratively, and some try to prohibit it entirely. The same variation of attitudes towards other law-enforcement problems exists. The federal government could not enforce one kind of law in one place and another kind elsewhere. It could hardly adopt strict standards for loose states or loose standards for strict states without doing violence to local sentiment. In spite of the temptation to divert our power to local conditions where they have become offensive to our sense of decency, the only long-term policy that will save federal justice from being discredited by entanglements with local politics is that it confine itself to strict and impartial enforcement of federal law, letting the chips fall in the community where they may. Just as there should be no permitting of local considerations to stop federal enforcement, so there should be no striving to enlarge our power over local affairs and no use of federal prosecutions to exert an indirect influence that would be unlawful if exerted directly.

The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway. A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.

View Full Transcript
Publication Date
December 1, 1940

Citation
24 J. Am. Jud. Soc’y 18 (1940), 31 J. Crim. L. 3 (1940) (address at Conference of United States Attorneys, Washington, D.C., April 1, 1940).

[Body-by-Guinness]

Warren gets outed on X:

Sam Altman Chats Back to Sen. Warren
He doesn’t sound intimidated, after giving to Trump’s inaugural.
By
The Editorial Board

Jan. 20, 2025 at 5:44 pm ET

Democrats are used to bullying corporations, but maybe the tactic is losing potency. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Michael Bennet sent a letter last week to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman to bludgeon him for contributing to President Trump’s inauguration fund. Mr. Altman responded by posting it online for all to see.

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
Donald Trump Promises a ‘Golden Age’ in His Inaugural Address

“Big Tech companies have come under increased scrutiny from federal regulators,” the Senators wrote. “We are concerned that your company and other Big Tech donors are using your massive contributions to the inaugural fund to cozy up to the incoming Trump administration.” Mr. Altman was intending “to personally donate $1 million,” according to the letter.

“Funny, they never sent me one of these for contributing to democrats,” Mr. Altman commented on X. The donation described by Ms. Warren and Mr. Bennet “was a personal contribution as you state,” he added, so he was “confused about the questions given that my company did not make a decision.” Both points hit home, and they show what the Senators are really doing here.

Kamala Harris’s political team raised more than $1 billion. President Biden’s inaugural in 2020 got about $62 million, and that donor club included companies such as Pfizer, Boeing and Uber, as well as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, according to Reuters. We can’t recall Democrats taking umbrage.

The letter from Ms. Warren and Mr. Bennet says Mr. Altman has “a clear and direct interest in obtaining favors from the incoming administration,” since his company is “the subject of ongoing federal investigations and regulatory actions.” Have they considered that a punitive regulatory environment might be what’s driving tech CEOs to Mr. Trump?

Companies that reply to browbeating letters by apologetically pledging to do more on progressive priorities encourage the coercive tactic. Kudos to Mr. Altman for calling it out.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/sam-altman-elizabeth-warren-michael-bennet-openai-donald-trump-inauguration-fund-72c2970f?st=UgqRn1