Tina Peters was once the Clerk and Recorder of Mesa County Colorado,
and was in charge of county elections. Now she is serving a 9-year term
in a Colorado prison. Her crime? She identified the unauthorized
destruction of voter information that took place in two consecutive
county elections: the November 2020 election and a local election held
in early 2021. In each case, she found irrefutable evidence showing that
the election database had been removed and subsequently reinstalled,
minus information needed to identify the voter intent of thousands of
ballots.
Peters, who is a matronly gold star mother, was concerned
after 3 conservatives lost in a local election, despite the county
having far more Republicans than Democrats. Due to a pending software
update, the election database would soon be altered. For that reason,
Peters asked her IT department to make a backup copy of the database.
When they refused, Peters decided to take independent action. That
action involved legal infractions that gave Colorado and local officials
the excuse they needed to wage despicable lawfare. Here is the
background.
Tina Peters asked an outside computer technician to
make a database copy, and that copy ended up in the hands of two
established IT experts. (It is not clear who gave it to them.) After the
experts examined the database in minute detail, they issued an 87-page
technical report with shocking revelations that have never been refuted.
Here is an excerpt from the report, which was prepared by Walter
Daugherity and Jeffrey O’Donnell:
“There was an
unauthorized creation of new election databases during early voting in
the 2020 General Election on October 21, 2020, followed by the digital
reloading of 20,346 ballot records into the new election databases,
making the original voter intent recorded from the ballots unknown. In
addition, 5,567 ballots in 58 batches did not have their digital records
copied to the new database, although the votes from the ballots in
those batches were recorded in the Main election database” (Report, p. 3)
For
granting “unauthorized access” to the database, Tina Peters was
indicted on March 9, 2022 on a slew of overlapping charges. The felony
charges include attempting to influence a public servant, identity
theft, criminal impersonation and conspiracy to commit criminal
impersonation. The misdemeanors include first-degree official
misconduct, violation of duty and failure to comply with the
requirements of the secretary of state.
The county district
attorney, Dan Rubinstein, did not dispute a single point in the 87-page
technical report, and he even acknowledged that “[f]urther investigation
would be required to determine if...election records as required by
statute” are gone forever. (Yes Dan, they are gone forever —
a fact that we now know because of the courageous actions taken by Tina
Peters.) Nevertheless, in a state that has become rabidly to the left
of California, the DA probably did what he had to (politically
speaking).
A jury found Peters guilty and, in October 2024,
she was sentenced to 9 years in state prison, where she now sits. Keep
in mind that Tina Peters did not profit from this matter in any way, and
did not act with malice. Further, her concerns proved to be well
founded. Indeed, the database had been altered, and voter information
for two elections has been lost forever.
The judge, Democrat Matthew Barrett, decided that tough action was required because Tina Peter’s actions were “just as bad, if not worse, than the physical violence that this court sees on an all too regular basis.” I guess that gang members from Colorado’s chapter of Tren de Aragua have yet to appear in Judge Barrett’s court room.
Enter Attorney General Pam Bondi
28 U.S.C. §2254
provides potential relief to victims of overzealous state and local
courts, and the attorneys for Tina Peters filed an application for
relief under that federal statute. The response from the Bondi Justice
Department has been very positive. In a “STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,” Acting Assistant AG Yaajiv N, Roth informed a United States district court that
“...the
concerns raised in the Application warrant—at the very least—prompt and
careful consideration by this Court (and, at the appropriate time, the
Colorado appellate courts).”
The DOJ statement
also references a broader review of legal abuses, nationwide, triggered
by President Trump’s Executive Order 14147, “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government.” In a memo
issued by Attorney General Bondi, there is a list of other cases
subject to review. Those cases include the lawfare waged by Jack Smith
and Alvin Bragg, and cases involving the “...criminal prosecution of legitimate whistleblowers.”
Tina
Peters would fit nicely in that category. She is a legitimate
whistleblower who sits in prison—a victim of aggressive lawfare waged by
overzealous partisans.
A New York appeals court held a hearing yesterday, September 26, on
the appeal of the $454 million civil fraud judgment imposed against
Donald Trump. The former president’s appeal was greeted by a more
receptive audience than the notoriously anti-Trump trial judge, Arthur
Engoron.
As in all things legal, we turned to Legal Affairs Editor Scott D. Cosenza, Esq., to unpack the appeal.
Leesa K. Donner: Trump’s lawyers are arguing
to have the civil fraud conviction overturned. Scott, based on what you
heard from the hearing, do they have a chance?
Scott D. Cosenza: Better than just a chance. New
York Attorney General Letitia James campaigned for office on a “get
Trump” platform – and she has, for now. Mr. Trump has a few chances to
appeal the massive penalty against him, both in state and – if it gets
that far – federal court.
LKD: Weren’t Judge Arthur Engoron’s rulings and opinions always ripe for a challenge?
SDC: While I am not a New York attorney, many
decisions and rulings in the case seemed to provide opportunities for
reversal in the appellate courts.
LKD: Judge Peter Moulton asked: “How do you tether
the amount that was assessed by the Supreme Court to the harm that was
caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?” What, if
anything, does this type of query suggest?
SDC: Judges are perplexed by the same thing that the
common observer of the case is. How is it a fraud if there is no
victim? Another assertion from the bench was that the state has never –
not even one time – prosecuted a case like this, where no complaint was
made and no one is claiming victim status. It’s interesting that the
bench has delved so deeply into the matter, and before arguments to
boot.
LKD: According to many legal experts, this civil
fraud case appeared to be a stretch right from the jump. Why wasn’t
Engoron able to see this, or did he see it and simply choose to ignore
it?
SDC: Well, I can’t read minds. Orange Man Bad syndrome would be my guess.
LKD: A significant portion of the hearing was
devoted to the valuation Mr. Trump attached to his various properties.
However, the former president’s attorneys were able to shoot holes in
this by saying he undervalued several of his holdings. Do you think
their decision will hinge on this valuation issue?
Give Cable TV the Boot – Check This Out!
SDC: I think what’s more relevant is that Mr. Trump
was dealing with New York and international banks relating to real
estate in the state. They are the most sophisticated participants in the
lending and real estate markets than one could contemplate. Trump is
not accused of fleecing widows and orphans with shoddy shotgun shacks.
Did he really “put one over” on these banks? The notion seems
far-fetched.
LKD: If the judgment is vacated, what will be the takeaway for New York Attorney General Letitia James?
SDC: This is the intermediate appeals court. Almost
certainly James would appeal the decision to the state’s highest court,
which is not called the Supreme Court but the New York Court of Appeals.
LKD: When it comes down to the nitty gritty, do the
justices’ questions – more often than not – indicate in which direction
they might be heading?
SDC: Trump’s lawyer and his arguments seemed well
received by many on the five-judge panel at Thursday’s hearing. Counsel
for the attorney general’s office was challenged by the bench literally
within the first two seconds of her argument. Appeals courts very rarely
give advocates no space at all to state their case. That said, lawyers
love to equivocate, and I’m no different, so I will hurry to add that
questions at oral argument are often not revelatory of the judges’
opinions of an argument’s merits.
~
Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.
When Donald Trump seemed to have a lock on the 2016 Republican
primary, the Democratic Party concluded that the people could not be
counted on to do the "right thing" of electing the Democratic candidate
in waiting for Hillary Clinton.
Eight long years of
extralegal efforts followed to neuter the candidate, then President,
then ex-President, and then-candidate again, Donald Trump.
The nonstop efforts were all justified as "saving democracy" -- albeit by nearly destroying it.
In
2015-2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign fueled the lie that discredited
ex-British spy Christopher Steele had discovered Trump to be a
veritable Russian agent.
Hillary did not disclose that she had
paid Steele with checks hidden behind three paywalls. The FBI, under
Director James Comey, also hired the fraudster.
Yet almost nothing in his "Steele dossier" was true.
The
FBI doctored evidence submitted to a FISA court. Comey leaked
confidential documents about his private conversations with President
Trump to the press.
Comey's successor, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, lied to federal investigators on numerous occasions.
Both
former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper repeatedly lied to the nation, saying that
Trump was de facto working with the Russians.
The result? Trump lost the 2016 popular vote but still won the Electoral College.
Next,
celebrities and well-funded liberals waged a media campaign to convince
the electors to become "faithless." Left-wing elites begged them to
renounce their constitutional duties and instead throw the election to
Hillary Clinton.
Once Trump was elected, "Russian collusion" was fired up again in hysterical fashion.
A special counsel, Robert Mueller, consumed 22 months of the Trump
presidency. His investigation team constantly leaked falsehoods about
the "walls closing in on" Trump.
After nearly two years, Mueller announced there was no evidence of a Trump effort to collude with Russia.
Next was Trump's first impeachment, nearly the moment he lost the House in 2018.
Supposedly, Trump had leveraged Ukraine to investigate a corrupt Hunter Biden by delaying foreign aid.
Trump was impeached on a strictly partisan vote.
But
later, no one denied that the drug-addled Hunter Biden had indeed
gotten rich from Ukraine, or that Joe Biden had fired a Ukrainian
prosecutor looking into his son's misadventures while still vice
president, or that Trump released all the military assistance designated
by Congress, or that he included offensive weapons formerly denied
Ukraine by the Obama-Biden administration.
Next, in 2020, when
Hunter's laptop turned up abandoned at a repair shop and full of
incriminating evidence of more Biden family skullduggery, the left
struck again.
It rounded up "51 former intelligence authorities"
to mislead the American people on the eve of the vote that the laptop
was likely a fake -- once again cooked up by Russian disinformation
experts to aid Trump.
And once more, that was another complete
falsehood. However, the lie proved useful to Joe Biden in the debates
and campaign. And he won the election.
Next, the learn-nothing, forget-nothing left turned to the 2023-2024 campaign.
This time, their next extra-legal efforts were twofold.
One, they unsuccessfully sought to remove Trump from some 15 state ballots.
Two, local, state, and federal courts began to wage lawfare to
convict and jail candidate Trump, or at least bankrupt him and keep him
off the campaign trail.
Three county and state prosecutors
campaigned on getting Trump on charges never filed before against a
presidential candidate -- and rarely against anyone else as well.
The Fani Willis, Georgia lead prosecutor, met secretly with the Biden White House counsel.
Alvin Bragg's Manhattan team hired the third-ranking federal prosecutor in the Biden Justice Department.
A court found special counsel Jack Smith to have been illegally appointed, and much of his case was dismissed.
On
July 14, a shooter nearly killed candidate Trump, nicking his ear after
somehow firing a rifle from a rooftop a mere 140 yards away -- while
undetected by law enforcement inside the very same building below.
Prior to the shooting, Joe Biden had boasted to donors that "it's time to put Trump in a bullseye."
Biden
had railed nearly nonstop that a Trump victory would spell the end of
democracy -- a theme the left had fueled by comparing ad nauseam Trump
to Adolf Hitler.
Yet here we are in mid-July 2024, and Trump, the
Republican candidate, is alive and leads incumbent Biden -- either
because of or despite the crude efforts to destroy him.
After nearly a decade of utter madness, can we finally order the FBI, DOJ, and CIA to butt out of our elections?
Can a bankrupt media cease whipping up hysteria about a supposed Nazi-like takeover?
Can the left stop relying on washed-up British spies, corrupt ex-spooks, and teams of clownish partisan prosecutors?
Instead, why not, at last, just let the people choose their own president?
On Wednesday, three teens were arrested
for riding e-scooters over an LGBTQ ‘Pride’ mural painted on a
crosswalk in Spokane, Washington. One of the teens was charged with a
first degree felony and bail was set at $15,000.
On Saturday, in another Washington thousands of miles away, Hamas supporters rioted
near the White House. They threw bottles at a park ranger and
vandalized national monuments with graffiti reading “Death to America”.
Islamic terrorist supporters waved banners and held up signs in support
of Hamas. One man in a Hamas headband brandished a bloody Biden mask.
Two Park Police officers were injured in the pro-Hamas violence, but not one arrest was made.
Not
a single arrest for the assault on a federal employee (1-20 years in
prison), the vandalism of national monuments (10 years in prison) or the
support for a terrorist organization (20 years in prison). If only they
had done some donuts on a ’Pride’ mural, they might be in jail now.
But
as we already learned during the BLM riots and the subsequent eco-riots
and Hamas riots, vandalism and even assaulting law enforcement officers
is not a crime when done by the right people for the right reasons.
Even assaulting Capitol police officers, which up until now has been the
only assault on a law enforcement officer that Democrats would condemn,
became a victimless crime when Hamas supporters fought police outside
Democrat headquarters forcing the evacuation of members of Congress. One
of the men slammed a female police officer against a garage door and
punched her in the face only to get 48 hours of community service.
Similarly
after weeks of antisemitic violence at UCLA, the only serious arrest
made was of Edan On, a Jewish high school student, who had been fighting
to protect Jewish students after the university allowed Hamas
supporters to occupy part of its grounds. Multiple Jewish students and
community members had been attacked while campus cops and the LAPD
refused to intervene.
CNN however ran a profile “unmasking” the
Jewish protesters with a view to getting them arrested rather than any
of the Hamas supporters attacking Jews on campus. The 18-year-old’s name
now appears as a headline at USA Today, not a single Hamas supporter
does.
I have spoken to Jewish community members who were
assaulted at UCLA while police watched and refused to do anything,
telling them to go down to the station and file a report.
This is
the same L.A. in which BLM activists scored millions in police
settlements from the BLM riots. And a place where the mayor is a close personal friend of a BLM leader backing the pro-Hamas riots and the Board of Supervisors paid for the defense of UCLA Hamas supporters.
The
pattern is everywhere from BLM to J6, from Trump’s arrests to Biden’s
pass. Crimes are not defined by laws, but by ideology. Prosecutorial
discretion allows the full weight of the law to be brought against
political opponents while political supporters will likely not even be
arrested.
The evolving shadow legal doctrine that ties it all
together is that actual actions, like vandalism or assault, don’t
matter, what does matter is their positive or negative political value. A
skid mark on a BLM or Pride mural is an act of hate while vandalizing a
statue or memorial for BLM or Islamic terrorists is an act of social
justice. A protester punching a Capitol police officer has a negative
social impact if he is doing it to support Trump, but a positive social
impact if he is doing it to support Hamas. And Hamas supporters
attacking Jews are fighting for justice while Jews fighting back against
them are oppressive Zionist warmongers who must be stopped.
This
‘right side of history’ doctrine is often phrased in subjective
language like ‘hate’ or ‘assault on democracy’. These cannot be
quantified because they operate purely in the realm of ideological
tests. Much as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart defined pornography
as “I know it when I see it”, so too his modern counterparts know who
gets a pass and who doesn’t.
What they really know is who shares
their politics and who doesn’t. So, increasingly, do juries. A system
that could rely on jurors to do their jobs even a mere 5 years ago no
longer can. Judges and jurors in ultra-leftist areas have, like career
professionals including doctors and lawyers, been told that their duty
is not to the law, but to upholding their side of the great ideological
war.
Ordinary people, like the teens in Spokane, lack the
ideological grounding and unexpectedly discover that what in other
circumstances was a minor prank is now suddenly a major crime even while
they and their parents watch much more horrific crimes being praised on
TV.
What is obviously understood by the Potter Stewarts who
prosecute, judge and opine about crimes is confusing to the ordinary
citizenry who don’t understand why criminals freely roam the streets
while the only crimes that the authorities seem to care about are
“threats to democracy”.
The notion of what a crime is has been radically redefined in a matter of years.
At
the height of BLM madness, violent offenders were set loose while
people could be arrested and tried for new crimes like calling the
police on a person of the wrong race. DA Bragg in Manhattan, who
prosecuted Trump, came into office with a memo not to prosecute armed
robbers. Crimes with clear offenses and punishment were no longer
prosecuted, but instead convoluted chains of legal reasoning were used
by DA Bragg to criminalize Trump’s opposition.
In Washington
D.C., whose city council at one point tried to legalize carjacking, the
only people who seem to face serious charges anymore are murderers and
Republicans. Murder is more likely to be legalized in D.C. than being a
political opponent of the radicals in power.
Political
segregation effectively means that half the country no longer enjoys
civil rights in places like Washington D.C., Los Angeles and New York
City. Attacks on them go unpunished while any offense by them, even in
self-defense, will mean the harshest possible prison sentences.
Abuses
of power that harken back to the worst days of the early Civil Rights
era have become routine. Law enforcement knows whom to arrest and whom
not to bother arresting. Cops only intervene when the leftist violence
is severe enough that it will reflect badly on them. Faced with
individual assaults, they rarely bother intervening, collecting evidence
or upholding the law. Even when the assaults lead to serious injury, or
as in the case of Paul Kessler, a Jewish man assaulted by a terrorist
supporter during a pro-Israel rally in California, death.
Prosecutors,
many of them progressives or harboring political ambitions, drop cases
against leftists while currying favor with the new establishment by
throwing the book at their opponents. Judges, especially in areas where
they are elected, are just as bad, and jurors are responding to social
pressure to punish political and cultural enemies, and spare their own
political allies.
Crimes in free countries primarily punish
assaults on property and persons while in totalitarian states they
primarily punish crimes against the state. Pro-crime policies
effectively decriminalized drug offenses, shoplifting and even some
violent assaults because punishing crimes against persons and property
was seen as upholding a racist and capitalist system.
But the
police were never going to be truly defunded and crime was never going
to go away. Instead in the last 5 years, crime has come to be defined as
a political and social offense, an act of hate, a threat to democracy
and an insult to the values and views of the ruling elite.
America’s
justice system is being replaced by kangaroo courts and a banana
republic system that selectively arrests, prosecutes and convicts
political opponents for opposing the regime.
Whether or not
something is a crime does not depend on the law, but on the politics of
it. There could hardly be a clearer example of it when the day before
Hamas supporters staged their attack near the White House. Steve Bannon
joined another Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, in being dispatched to
prison for contempt of Congress.
Is contempt of Congress a crime? It depends who is in contempt and who is in Congress.
About
a year ago I received a phone call from John Eastman, the prominent
constitutional scholar. He was facing disbarment proceedings for the
advice he had given President Trump, had read my book (Debunked),
and wanted me to testify on his behalf at the forthcoming California
disbarment trial. Of course, I was eager to testify because I believed
(and still believe) that the six key swing state elections were not
certifiable. The specific reasons are laid out in the book.
Originally,
I was one of 7 “experts” selected by Eastman and his attorney, Randy
Miller. As experts, we would be able to give our opinions regarding the
integrity of the election. However, well-financed attorneys for the
California State Bar Association (SBA) immediately objected – to every
witness. Most of the time, Judge Yvette Roland was eager to oblige the
SBA.
In my case, Judge Roland ignored the fact that I was a
veteran auditor and CPA, had written a comprehensive numbers-based book
on the 2020 election, had written a book describing 23 ways we can
improve our elections, and had published at least 25 articles on the
subject. The problem? I “did not audit any of the state results for the
2020 election.” Her statement was correct: No state or county offered to
let me inspect and audit its election. To my knowledge, however, no
state or county has ever invited any outside CPA firm to perform such an
audit. The closest we came was in 2021, when the Cyber Ninja audit was
forced upon the highly reluctant and totally uncooperative Maricopa
County, in Arizona.
So, I would not be an “expert,” but I would
still be able to testify as a “fact witness.” I could testify about
relevant observations I made and testing I performed, but I would not be
able to express a general opinion. That did not bother me too much
because the facts would speak for themselves. Besides, as a dismissed
“expert” I was in very fine company.
In the final analysis, Her
Honor disqualified most of the defense experts, including defendant John
Eastman (arguably the nation’s foremost expert on constitutional
issues), Michael Gableman (a former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice and
the Special Counsel who conducted a comprehensive review of the 2020
Wisconsin election), and Garland Favorito, who has performed extensive
election research for more than a decade, and has testified as an expert
in other courtrooms. We would be allowed to testify as fact witnesses.
The testimony of some other experts was completely barred.
As a
result of “the purge,” one side (the prosecution) would be able to
expound on the accuracy and fairness of the election, while the other
side (the defense) would not be able to express disagreement. For this
and other reasons, the trial was a joke.
Although Judge
Yvette Roland seems like a smart woman, and she may have a good grasp of
the law, it is clear that she is a committed partisan. That is evident
because she has donated to Democrat campaigns while serving on the bench. It is also clear because of her demeanor in the courtroom.
From
the start, the judge showed great skepticism of every assertion made by
Eastman and his attorney, Randy Miller. Almost all of Miller’s
objections were overruled while the objections of the SBA attorneys were
mostly sustained. At one point, Judge Roland had the audacity to berate
former Wisconsin Justice Michael Gableman. He made the mistake of
inquiring about the rules of evidence being used in the courtroom.
Roland became so angry that she called for a 5 minute break, and told
the defense counsel to “have a conversation with Judge Gableman, maybe
straighten out a few misunderstandings or...we’ll leave it at that.”
When
John Eastman referred to the vice president as “him,” Judge Roland
corrected Eastman by saying “or her.” According to reporter Rachel
Alexander, a trial observer tweeted that Roland seemed more like a
prosecutor than a judge.
The President of Judicial watch, Tom
Fitton, took it a step further in a posting on “X:” “Kangaroo court
proceedings in California to disbar John Eastman, one of the nation’s
leading constitutional lawyers, for daring to provide legal advice on
the Biden election controversy.”
Fitton hit the nail on the head:
Across the country, attorneys are facing disbarment and even jail time –
simply for agreeing with the assertions of their clients, or for
aggressively exploring the legal options available to their clients.
That is unprecedented.
In the past, it was normal to hear a lawyer
proclaim the innocence of his client.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, my client did not kill his wife!”
Later, when the jury decided
that the client had, indeed, killed his wife, the attorney did not face
disbarment for lying to the court. The lawyer who supported the views
and legal options of her client was considered to be a good and
dedicated defense attorney. Not anymore.
But let’s get back to my
testimony in the John Eastman trial. In the final analysis I did not
testify at all– even as a fact witness. That was extremely unfair to
John Eastman, and to the standards of justice we used to cherish in
America.
Late one afternoon in September, I was scheduled to
testify, and was ready to present many “facts” - not opinions. I had
developed those facts by applying the audit skills I had developed in a
40 year career as a CPA. In some cases, the results were alarming.
In
Pennsylvania I tested the work of Rep. Frank Ryan and Verity Vote, and I
could confirm that there were exactly 202,377 more ballots cast than
identified voters when the state certified its election. That is not
opinion, it is something that can be calculated from publicly-available
information. In the weeks following the election, the Pennsylvania voter
deficit got smaller. However, on February 1, 2021 – nearly 3 months
after the election – there were still at least 90,000 more ballots cast
than identified voters. Thanks to Judge Roland, that information was
never presented at trial.
In Georgia, I calculated the statistical
odds of Democrat Fulton County, the largest county in the state, having
a rejection rate only 1/7th of that of the state as a whole, and less
than any other comparable county (comparable in terms of per capita
income, demographics, or population) It was less than 1 in a billion.
That is not opinion – it is a statistical fact.
I also tested a
sample of the bizarre findings of VoterGA. It can be proven that
thousands of scanned ballot images had precisely the same timestamp, to
the split second. That is quite a trick when it takes a full second to
scan each ballot. And in Michigan, it was not hard to calculate how many
ballots were rejected for having bad signatures. It was just one in
2,500.
When I was about to testify, in late September 2023, the Judge changed her mind: I no longer qualified – even as a fact witness.
The prosecutors asked me how I went about writing Debunked,
and I responded that information was disappearing from the internet, so
I started by grabbing as much as I could before it was gone. Then I
reviewed the information, and applied audit-type tests, using
information from sources such as the Election Administration Voting
Survey, Ballotpedia, Secretary of State databases, and about two dozen
county election administration websites. In a detailed overview of my
data sources and procedures, Eastman’s attorney listed 40 different
information sources I used so that I could independently verify election
information.
In the end, it was for nothing, and the judge
would not let me testify. Why? Because I sounded more like an expert
than a fact witness: “To testify about his analysis of this material
and, to offer an opinion regarding it, falls within the role of an
expert.”
Was that supposed to be a joke? When a judge is hostile, the defendant cannot win.
“When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake
of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to
chaos.” Sir Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons.
By Rich Kozlovich
One of my favorite movies is a Man For All Seasons, with Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More, a movie I wish was shown more often, and particularly now. A corrupt judge, corrupt prosecution, lying witnesses, and a predetermined verdict with a selected jury, against a man who truly believed in the rule of law. In his discussion about the importance of adhering to the rule of law, More's challenged:
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir
Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned
'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's
laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do
it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would
blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's
sake!”
Let's face it, in no way can Alan Dershowitz be considered a conservative, but it appears he, like Sir Thomas, really believes in the rule of law, and was shocked at what he saw going on in Judge Merchan's court saying he'd 'Never seen such a spectacle'!
Merchan was castigating Costello for rolling his eyes, as the Fox
News host then pointed out "I'm my rolling my eyes just hearing about
what's going on in that courtroom!" Dershowitz then confirmed to Hannity
he's never seen anything like this in the years he's practiced law. Dershowitz
himself rolled his eyes and stared him down, he explained, who had been
sitting in the very front row, "when the judge made some rulings that
were absurd," adding "any first year evidence student would understand that he was making biased rulings in favor of one side."
Justice Merchan has gagged witnesses who were vital to Trump's defense on more than one occasion, including a former FEC commissioner, but allows Bragg's star witness, Michael Cohen, a convicted serial liar and a admitted thief, who ends up destroying Bragg's case.
A case of made up charges for a made up crimes. That becomes important, since normally it's the job of the prosecution to define the crime committed by the defendant. Since Bragg's case is in shambles, Merchan has transferred that responsibility over to the jury. Imagine that!
Trump......was never told which of the underlying crimes he
supposedly committed in the courtroom, so he was not able to defend
himself from them, which according to some legal observers violates the
equal protection clause. His instructions actually were illegal, based on a recent Supreme
Court case in an opinion written by left-leaning Justice Stephen Breyer
that right-leaning Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas concurred
with, regarding the critical need for unanimity regarding an underlying
crime:
They were in effect told to just find a crime, any crime, make one up if you have to. This is part of the lawfare conspiracy, with the mentality as long as you find him guilty of, something, anything, it's fine with me.
None of this is normal, or legal! Now under "Merchan's Rule" it will now only take four jurors to convict Trump in an "unanimous" decision. Four jurors can be a unanimous decision? Where in any law in the land is that valid? Only in Merchan's courtroom, and here's how he will rig this "unanimous" decision.
"Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is. The
jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes
were being concealed and Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous
verdict," George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan
Turley, who has been inside the courtroom, writes. "The jury has been
given little substantive information on these crimes, and Merchan has
denied a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal
election violation. This case should have been dismissed for lack of
evidence or a cognizable crime."
"You read that right: 4-4-4 is a unanimous verdict. The only thing that’s criminal in this trial is the trial itself."
What if Justice Merchan has been compromised? - Given what we know about what has been going on in Justice Juan
Merchan’s Manhattan courtroom, including the preposterous, over-the-top
bias of this judge for the prosecution and his overt antipathy for the
defendant, Donald Trump, what explains his willing destruction of his
own reputation as a judge?
Each and every legal scholar who has weighed in on the course of the
trial, from Alan Dershowitz to Jonathan Turley and countless others,
(with the exception of those paid by CNN and MSNBC) is gobsmacked by
Merchan’s thoroughly unconstitutional rulings, gag orders, contempt
charges, exclusion of practically every witness with relevant testimony
for the defense, and his allowance of non-relevant witnesses like Stormy
Daniels. He allowed her testimony, too, even though she knew nothing
about the issue being tried, to spew her pornographic filth that could
only come from the mouth of a porn star actress.
At the end of A Man For All Seasons Sir Thomas More asks, Richard Rich, who perjured himself against More, what was the chain of office he was wearing. Judge Cromwell says he's been appointed Attorney General to Wales. More's response?
“For Wales? Why Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. . . but for Wales!”
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out for Merchan in the future, but I betting if Trump is re-elected, he's in big trouble, right along with the rest of the corrupt prosecutors and judges. Make no mistake, this is a RICO case.
As a side bar, what happened to Cromwell? He was "a totally ruthless, unscrupulous, political operator" and became Chancellor rising to great political heights of power, until the King became displeased with him, and had him beheaded on false charges, without trial. The perverter of the rule of law met his doom via the perversion of the rule of law....." in his last personal address to the king..... "Most gracious Prince, I cry for mercy, mercy, mercy."
Sir
Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned
'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's
laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do
it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would
blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's
sake!”
A tumultuous court session on Monday, May 20, saw one witness for the
prosecution against former President Donald Trump admit to massive
theft and a witness for the defense berated by the presiding judge. With
one week to go in this historic trial and a motion to dismiss the case
entirely under review by the judge, the grand finale of the only case
against Trump likely to be determined before the November election has
viewers spellbound.
Attorney Robert Costello made headlines a week ago as a star
witness before Congress, testifying about Michael Cohen’s lies. Monday
in the Trump trial
over Stormy Daniels payouts, Costello caused a different scene
entirely. Judge Juan Merchan first dismissed the jury and then later
cleared the courtroom to rebuke Costello. Before those fireworks,
however, Mr. Cohen’s fraud and theft against Trump were discussed in
greater detail on cross-examination. We learned about Cohen’s millions
“earned” from exploiting his relationship with Trump for financial gain,
then turning on him and selling appearances criticizing his former
client.
Crime Does Pay, For Some
First up was Micheal Cohen’s continued cross-examination by the
defense. He admitted to stealing $30,000 from Trump after claiming he
was using the money to pay a delinquent bill to technology services
company Red Finch. Cohen collected $50,000 from Trump for the payment
but only handed over $20,000.
After having Cohen affirm that he did, indeed, steal money from the
Trump Organization, Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked whether he had
“been prosecuted for larceny or even made to pay it back?” “No sir,”
Cohen replied.
What’s
icing on the cake was why he was collecting the debt – Red Finch’s CEO
was his friend. With friends like Cohen…. The disgraced and disbarred
former lawyer admitted to stealing from both Red Finch and Trump. This
revelation can’t be understated in what it reveals about the
prosecution. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg – who structured and brought the
case – is a Democrat accused by Trump and others of waging lawfare,
using the power of the office to punish a political enemy rather than
seek justice. Cohen’s frank admission lays bare that Bragg ignored a
massive fraud involving multiple victims, including Donald Trump, to
convict the former president of mislabeling settlement payments.
Next up was Robert Costello, the lawyer, who is a former federal
prosecutor in Manhattan. He is a Trump ally and was Cohen’s attorney for
a time, but he got stiffed on his bill. Costello has been telling
anyone who will listen that Cohen is lying about much of his testimony,
including Trump’s knowledge of the Stormy Daniels payoff, much less
agreeing to it.
Combative Testimony
Matthew Russell Lee, an attorney and independent reporter for his Inner City Press, was
in the courtroom as he has been since the start. He said of Costello,
“his direct examination was like nothing I’ve ever seen.” Mr. Costello’s
testimony was allowed only in a narrow range, and “almost everything
was objected to, and almost everything was sustained.” But Costello did
not testify within the bounds established by Merchan, answering
questions that were deemed out of order by the judge:
“He would then answer the question, then they would say
‘stricken,’ and then finally, he was asked a question; Hoffinger, the
prosecutor objected, Judge Merchan said, ‘sustained’ and, Bob Costello
said, ‘Jeez.’
That’s what set things on the path to the courtroom clearing. After a subsequent question, Courthouse News Service (CNS)
reported Costello exhibited a “loud exhale.” It set Merchan off. The
judge dismissed the jury to admonish the witness, and when they cleared
out, he said, “I’d like to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom. When
you’re a witness on my stand, if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t
say, ‘Geez,’ you don’t give me side-eye, and you don’t roll your eyes,
okay?” Costello audibly agreed but communicated something else entirely
with a glare to the bench.
Out of order!
Merchan was about to bring the jury
back when he took exception to Costello’s gaze. “Are you staring me
down? Clear the courtroom!” Merchan ordered the public and the press out
in an extraordinary move to double down, bringing Costello to the
woodshed.
Soul of the Nation Narrative
Judges tend to see themselves as kings and queens in their
courtrooms. While they brush back insolence and disrespect with
regularity, clearing a courtroom like this is a rarity usually reserved
for dramatic scenes in fictional stories. What might Merchan have said
to Costello?
With any run-of-the-mill witness, a judge may threaten a
contempt finding with a fine and jail. As an attorney who practices in
the same judicial district, however, Costello is entirely in a different
box. He could be threatened with a complaint to the bar or an attempt
to restrict his right to appear in federal courts in that district.
CNS said, “When reporters were allowed back inside, Costello stared blankly forward, slumped in the witness chair.”
In other news, the trial was extended a week. Merchan previously
announced the likely end of the trial on Tuesday, May 21. Now, closing
arguments are scheduled for Tuesday, May 28, after the long Memorial Day
weekend. Lawyers for Mr. Trump have submitted a motion to dismiss the
case before it reaches the jury, arguing that Mr. Cohen’s testimony as
the star witness is not credible. Judge Merchan has not yet ruled on
this motion.
The people who run Vdare, a New York nonprofit organization focused on U.S. immigration policy, have good reason to be very worried. Just as she did with former President Donald Trump, Letitia James is using her authority and resources to selectively target conservative groups. Vdare is now dead center in her crosshairs.
You may or may not agree with the advocacy of Vdare, but that’s not the point. What matters is the right of all American citizens to excercise their first amendment privilege to speak freely, without being selectively targeted by a thug who shouldn’t be the attorney general of New York, or even a licensed attorney.
Recently, Tucker Carlson interviewed Lydia Brimelow regarding the effort of James to destroy the organization that her husband, Peter Brimelow, created. Here is an excerpt from the beginning of the interview, followed by a link to the entire show. It is well worth reading.
(Tucker)
The story of Peter and Lydia Brimelow explains why they're afraid. Peter Brimelow has been a journalist for 50 years. Worked at a whole bunch of what are now called mainstream publications. Was an editor—Barron's, Forbes, National Review, Dow Jones, a legitimate old school journalist. And in the late 90s, he began to ask questions about our immigration scheme. Is this really good idea, is it helping America? And of course, no one could answer those questions because the answer is obvious. No, it's destroying America; as it destroyed California, so it will destroy your state. That's certain. But for asking that question, he was fired from his jobs and shunted off into what we call the fringes. But he didn't stop. He started a website called VDARE. He runs it now with his wife, Lydia.
Use this link to read more of the transcript, or to watch the entire show on “X.”
Editor's Note: You may wish to review my entire Lawfare file of articles. RK
The article has links that go quite a way back, but I use them for two reasons. The facts are the facts, irrespective of time frames, and that history establishes a pattern, a consistent pattern that make those facts incontestable. Since SCOTUS Jurist Ketanji Brown Jackson has started the First Amendment could be used to limit
federal power by hamstringing the government in significant wary. Well...duh....that's why it's in the Constitution, and why it's the First Amendment, not the 27th. She even claims the First Amendment isn't popular among Constitutional scholars, and given the Marxist bent of Academia we're supposed to think should mean something to rational people. Jackson is a nitwit/dimwit/misfit, and the only bench she's qualified to sit on is a park bench.
I have a massive file on her, but this article touches all the bases, and understand, she's not alone by any stretch of the immigration, and not even the worst of the political hacks sitting on the nation's federal bench.
One of my 200 Rules
is: Definition leads to clarity. Clarity leads to understanding.
Understanding leads to good decision making. More and more writers
keep asking: If you can't define something how can you possibly rule on
it? One writer asked it she really is the "first" black woman to be
nominated to the court? After all, if "woman" is indefinable, perhaps
"black" is also indefinable. Since the left now demands we can self
identify to whatever we wish to be, and society "MUST" accept that,
perhaps she's not black or a woman? How's this. Not only can someone
self identify, everyone else can identify them as they please, and they
"MUST" accept that?
When we lose sight of the basics there's no end to the insanity. The
left destroys us with our own values, and for the left, there are no
boundaries, barriers or foundational values to which they subscribe.
They use every emotional tactic possible and lie, making accusations
they know are false. They will embrace the philosophical flavor of the
moment with great enthusiasm and self righteous fervor, until that no
longer works, and then embrace a view that's diametrically opposed to
their previous position with equal fervor if needs be to get and hold
power. The
left isn't wrong, it's evil, it's efforts are ubiquitous, even attempting to prevent Israel from fixing the judicial mess there.
State Department-funded Group Tries to Silence Netanyahu over Judicial Reform - Joel B. Pollak Israel’s Movement for Quality Government
(MQG), which received funding from the U.S. State Department, is trying
to stop Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking about his own
government’s judicial reforms. As Breitbart News has reported, the MQG has supported recent protests against Netanyahu and his judicial reforms, many of which parallel existing practice in the U.S. The State Department admitted
last week that it provided some funding to the group, including under
the Trump administration, for education programs, but denied that the
U.S. was involved in “propping up or supporting these protests or the
initiators of them.”......
Anyone picked to be a part of the federal
judiciary by the Biden administration supports all their evil, or they
wouldn't have been nominated, and they share in that evil. Some of these piece go back a way, and some of these issues are resolved, but it's the pattern of history that's important. They are in fact Criminals in Black Robes. "It is going to take a new Justice Department and several other changes to get lawbreaking judges out of our courtrooms."
Make no mistake, the Constitution is under threat, and it's under threat by the political hacks of America's judiciary, at both the state and federal level.
Democracy in Decline: The Subversion of Rule of Law By Roger Kimball - There are many signs and portents that signal the guttering of
the rule of law and its replacement: rule by law. It is an autumnal
sign—a sign of civilization at the end of its tether. A friend recently wrote me to offer a sharp formulation of a
distinction I have often written about myself. Regular readers know that
I am fond of distinguishing between “democracy”—a political arrangement in which the demos,
the people, rule—and “Our Democracy™,” a counterfeit or masquerade of
democracy in which not the people but an elite nomenklatura rule. To an
increasing extent, I believe, the United States is gradually subsisting
into the latter, with all the political, social, and moral deformations
that such anxious oligarchical arrangements entail..........Their modern successors have inhabited that political dispensation,
slyly perverting and emptying it out of its original signification while
maintaining the names and rituals of the original.......... Could the reactivation of FISA’s warrantless searches eventually be used to police thought crimes? -
February 16, 2024 By Dale Lowdermilk - The Republican House
had unceremoniously sent forward a bill that would reauthorize Section
702, a highly-controversial provision of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), but yesterday, over a little too much negative
press, they temporarily shelved the vote. Without congressional
intervention, Section 702 is set to expire in a little over two months. FISA was originally meant to target noncitizens abroad, especially
suspected terrorists, but somewhere along the way, the trawl net snared
suspicious, non-woke, non-PhD, MAGA-like, presidential candidates who
talked about draining the swamp of Washington D.C. and rooting out
the corruption plauging the people.............
Recapping the two-tiered justice system in light of revelations that foreign intel spied on Trump associatesFebruary 16, 2024 By Jack Hellner - The
Obama and Biden administrations have continually used government
bureaucrats to target political opponents. The media has known this for a
long time, and hasn’t cared. They pretend that Obama and Biden were
clean, and that Trump was/is the “greatest threat to democracy” America
has ever seen. The story below is one of pure election interference in the 2016 election:
Let’s jettison due process to ‘save our democracy’ - February 26, 2024 By George Shuster - The
Left’s frenzied focus on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a
typical deflection maneuver. As usual it represents the selection of one
part of the Constitution found useful for the purpose du jour, while conveniently ignoring more important sections that preclude the Left’s agendas. It
was gratifying to see that all members of the Supreme Court raised some
of these other issues during the oral argument about the attempt to
keep President Trump off the ballot. Even the leftist justices refused
to be lulled into the trap of a singular focus on Section 3 to the
exclusion of all else. They were clearly troubled, for example, by the
implications for the Constitution’s structure of federalism. It would be
of great service to our democracy if the justices were unanimous in
holding that Section 3 cannot be used to jettison the rest of the
Constitution....
Hawaii and the spirit of AlohaFebruary 10, 2024 By Mike McDaniel Did you know there
is a heretofore unknown legal principle known as “the spirit of Aloha,”
which for Hawaii--at last check a part of the United States—takes
precedence over the Bill of Rights? Hawaii’s Supreme Court thinks so: Hawaii's highest court ruled Wednesday that Second Amendment rights as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court do not extend to Hawaii citizens, citing the "spirit of Aloha."
Julie Kelly exposes the secret activities of the DC District Court - By John Dale Dunn - The outgoing DC
Courts chief judge Beryl Howell has been involved in many secret
activities and has closeted the trial court and grand jury proceedings
as well as issuing secret opinions on many matters of Grand Jury
activities and evidentiary matters. Read this article,
“Time to End the Veil of Secrecy Inside D.C. Kangaroo Court” by Julie
Kelly, to get a sense of the magnitude of corruption and enablement of
prosecutorial and grand jury abuses.Judge Howell appears to
have enjoyed her role as a prosecutor's helper.Also getting special
mention in this essay is Judge Tim Kelly who has left the constitutional
reservation and is making new and creative violations of
civil rights. This is so bad only a judge or a lawyer could begin
to fathom the significance of the violations of Judicial rules and civil
rights of defendants. ............The past two years have introduced us
to a new Stalinesque approach to
prosecuting political opponents in America. Lavrentiy Beria and old
Uncle Joe Stalin would approve......
Here are more John Dale Dunn pieces on the collapse of American's rule of law:
Mendacity and Corruption in the Judiciary - By Clarice FeldmanMarch 17, 2024 -Something is seriously
wrong with American law schools and the disciplinary outfits that are
supposed to monitor corrupt conduct of practitioners. You can see the
effects of this degradation in the outrageous behavior of government
prosecutors and in the judiciary, which ignores its responsibility to
decide fairly and without bias. We are churning out dishonest, corrupt
lawyers and judges who are more than willing to look the other way at
such behavior, condoning the most obvious selective partisan
prosecutions. As the awareness of the failure of the judicial system
grows, the consequences will be enormous -- respect for the traditional
way of resolving disputes and obeying the law are fundamental aspects of
a civilized, prosperous nation. Once that is lost, other less tenable
means will be employed. The focus this week was on the absurd
case in Georgia, where D.A. Fani Willis is criminalizing Donald Trump’s
challenge to the integrity of Georgia’s presidential election in 2020...........
Two Fifth Circuit Judges Will Not Hire Stanford Law School Clerks - Joel B. Pollak 2 Apr 2023 - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Judge
James Ho announced Saturday that he and Judge Elizabeth Branch will not
hire clerks from Stanford Law School after last month’s attempt to
silence Judge Kyle Duncan. Last year, Judges Ho and Branch had also announced a boycott of
clerkship applicants from Yale Law School, the Washington Free Beacon notes, in protest of that school’s “cancel culture” toward conservative views........
March 7, 2024 By Monica Showalter - Is another brick coming off the wall of the race-grievance industrial complex? That's what the Washington Post reports,
without admitting it, in an important federal court ruling shutting down
biased, counterproductive racial preferences in federal government
"help" to small businesses.According to the Post:
Immigration
Illegal aliens: of course they have Second Amendment rights! By Mike McDaniel
March 17, 2024 “The undocumented.”
“Newcomers.” We’re now told illegal aliens aren’t illegal, and it’s
wrong to refer to people who break the law the moment they step onto
American soil and remain as anything other than “undocumented” or
something equally undescriptive and inaccurate. But do illegal aliens
have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms? An Obama appointed
federal judge, who once thought they don’t, now thinks they do:
Obama-appointed
Chicago judge rules that the 2A applies to an illegal, and he has a
right to keep his illegally-possessed firearm -
March 19, 2024 By Olivia Murray - The
lawless free-for-all created by the political establishment and an
apathetic voting class has me seriously considering renouncing my
American citizenship—just think about all the possibilities! You
don’t pay income tax. The government hands you prepaid debit cards
loaded with thousands of dollars. You get “free” trips to swanky
enclaves like Martha’s Vineyard, only to be treated like guests of
honor. You’re provided with “free” room and board at high-end hotels, or
you’re given the leeway to squat in an American’s home. And now,
leftist judges tell you that you have Second Amendment rights
which cannot be infringed upon, and you can keep your guns no problem,
even if you were breaking the law with them—I mean, these are perks and
privileges we second-class real citizens aren’t afforded. Here’s the story, from a report published at The Epoch Times yesterday:......
Texas blocked—again—from being able to arrest and deport Illegals - By Gerald McGlothlin March 20, 2024 - Oh,
where to begin in the latest episode of “America’s Judicial
Rollercoaster” featuring the audacious blockade by the 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals against Texas's gallant effort to enforce its own
borders? Yes, you heard that right. In a
move that could only be concocted in the wildest dreams of a liberal
screenplay writer, the appellate court decided to thumb its nose at the
U.S. Supreme Court. Why?
Simply to prevent Texas from using Senate Bill 4 to do the
unfathomable: arrest and deport illegal immigrants. Gasp! The horror of a
state taking steps to protect its citizens and uphold law and order!
From CBS: ...............
January 6th
Transcripts Confirm J6 Committee Lied About Trump Attacking Secret ServiceJoel B. Pollak Newly-released transcripts of secret testimony
at the January 6 Committee show that a witness testified then-President
Donald Trump had not wrestled with a Secret Service agent, and had
indeed requested troops to protect the Capitol. The transcript of a closed-door interview with Deputy
Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato and then-Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) on
January 28, 2022, was hidden by the committee, as it played up
sensational claims that the testimony refuted. In particular, Cheney boosted the accusations by former Trump aide
Cassidy Hutchinson, who claimed publicly — and to great media fanfare —
that Trump had tried to commandeer his presidential vehicle to drive to
the Capitol riot........
Transcripts Confirm J6 Committee Lied About Trump Attacking Secret ServiceJoel B. Pollak Newly-released transcripts of secret testimony
at the January 6 Committee show that a witness testified then-President
Donald Trump had not wrestled with a Secret Service agent, and had
indeed requested troops to protect the Capitol. The transcript of a closed-door interview with Deputy
Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato and then-Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) on
January 28, 2022, was hidden by the committee, as it played up
sensational claims that the testimony refuted. In particular, Cheney boosted the accusations by former Trump aide
Cassidy Hutchinson, who claimed publicly — and to great media fanfare —
that Trump had tried to commandeer his presidential vehicle to drive to
the Capitol riot........
Will you be surprised to learn that the J6 Committee colluded with Fani Willis? - March 12, 2024 By Andrea Widburg - From 1936-1938,
Stalin held a series of trials in Moscow that effectively purged his
opposition through executions and imprisonment in gulags. We remember
them as “show trials” because they were pure theater, without any
semblance of due process or justice. The sentences were predetermined
political outcomes. We suspected that was the case during Nancy Pelosi’s
and Liz Cheney’s January 6 investigation and public hearing, but a
damning report proves it: The investigation was corrupt (including
meetings with Fani Willis), and the public proceedings were dishonest.
Stalin may have died in 1953 in Moscow, but his revenants are still hard
at work in America in 2024..........
Note: This one is listed twice, and probably could be listed in a number of categories the corruption is so vile and so ubiquitous. RK
Julie Kelly exposes the secret activities of the DC District Court - By John Dale Dunn - The outgoing DC
Courts chief judge Beryl Howell has been involved in many secret
activities and has closeted the trial court and grand jury proceedings
as well as issuing secret opinions on many matters of Grand Jury
activities and evidentiary matters. Read this article,
“Time to End the Veil of Secrecy Inside D.C. Kangaroo Court” by Julie
Kelly, to get a sense of the magnitude of corruption and enablement of
prosecutorial and grand jury abuses.Judge Howell appears to
have enjoyed her role as a prosecutor's helper.Also getting special
mention in this essay is Judge Tim Kelly who has left the constitutional
reservation and is making new and creative violations of
civil rights. This is so bad only a judge or a lawyer could begin
to fathom the significance of the violations of Judicial rules and civil
rights of defendants. ............The past two years have introduced us
to a new Stalinesque approach to
prosecuting political opponents in America. Lavrentiy Beria and old
Uncle Joe Stalin would approve......
Jack Smith Demands Evidence Remain Secret in Trump Case -ByTom Ozimek - Special
counsel Jack Smith said in a new court filing that he is strongly
opposed to the Trump camp’s latest request to disclose evidence in the
former president’s classified documents case, because disclosure would
expose potential witnesses to danger. “The defendants’ Motion is
inconsistent with the process they proposed (and that the Court
approved) for their supplemental reply brief,” Mr. Smith wrote in the Feb. 16 filing. “And
their request to disclose discovery materials should be denied for the
same reasons the Government has explained elsewhere: doing so would
unnecessarily expose potential witnesses to very real dangers of
harassment, intimidation, and reprisal.” President
Donald Trump’s request to disclose evidence in his classified documents
trial is vehemently opposed by special counsel Smith in a filing............
Legal Masterstroke: Judge Aileen Cannon Puts Jack Smith in the Ultimate Pickle - ByDiscern Reporter • Mar. 19, 2024 - Lawfare
is fought on two levels. The first and most public is utilizing vague
or outright incorrect interpretations of the law to weaponize it against
political opponents. The second level happens with the judges
themselves as lawfare practitioners seek “friendly” members of the
judiciary to deliver the court actions they desire. For the most
part, the enemies of President Donald Trump have won on the second level
by putting cases in front of judges that generally hate Trump. But
there one major exception is in Florida with Judge Aileen Cannon. She
has been a thorn in the side of Special Counsel Jack Smith and on Monday
night she may have delivered the death blow to his classified documents
case.
Immunity: Not so simple March 19, 2024 By George Shuster
The most pervasive
claim from the Left as to why the U.S. Supreme Court should not have
taken up the Trump immunity issue is that it is supposedly so
straightforward as not to require any further discussion. It is ever so
simple, they say, and besides, the D.C. Circuit's opinion was so
masterful that nothing further needs to be said. Therefore, the Left
continues, the only possible motive for taking up the case is the
improper purpose of delaying Trump's criminal trials. The claim is
dishonest. Let me enlighten the Left about a few inconvenient facts.
Trump documents case: a judge wondersMarch 17, 2024 by Mike McDanielA "novel legal theory" might consist of
applying a vicious dog ordinance to someone who owned only a parrot that
could bark like a dog. Climate bully Michael
Mann, with mixed results, has been suing those who criticize his “hockey
stick” graph of climate history. This 1998 graph purported to show that
global temperature was stable until about 1900 when human-induced
warming struck. In February, Mann scored a $1 million libel judgment
against Canadian columnist Mark Steyn in a court in the District of
Columbia. Steyn has responded with an appeal. .....
“Nothing Succeeds Like Excess”: New York’s Perverse Incentive in Pricing Trump Out of an Appeal” -By Johnathan Turley - Below is my column in the New York Post on the confiscatory fines
imposed on former president Donald Trump and his family and corporation.
Democrats are thrilled by the over the $450 million bill facing Trump
and the possibility that he could be forced to sell off property just to
seek an appeal. On ABC, New York Attorney General Letitia James declared
“If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek
judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to
seize his assets.” She added menacingly “yes, I look at 40 Wall Street
each and every day.” It is a curious legal system where defendants can
be priced out of appeals. While Trump has ample resources and can do
this without a “fire sale,” it suggests that a person could be forced to
sell a home to challenge its loss in court.
Here is the column:..............
Here is the column: Continue reading “Pay to Play: Trump Faces a Staggering Cost for Appeal” - By Johnathan Turley -Below is my column on Fox.com on the demand for roughly a $455
million dollar deposit or equivalent bond for Donald Trump to be able to
seek appellate review of the recent judgment against him. The
combination of the fine and the deposit rule highlight the confiscatory
elements of this judgment........In the wake of the massive judgment against Donald Trump, many in New
York are celebrating the prospect that the former president could be
forced to sell off his property just to be able to appeal the $355
million judgment against him. While Trump has good grounds to object to
this excessive fine, he still has to come up with close to a half
billion dollars just to make his arguments to the New York Court of
Appeals. In order to file an appeal, the courts require a deposit for the full
amount of the damages or a bond covering the full amount. Even with
escrow options, the call for cash or collateral can be enough to put
some executives in a fetal position. It can be challenging enough for many companies drained from years of
litigation. For Donald Trump, the demand for $355 million plus $100
million in interest could force a fire sale on properties to pony up just
the deposit................
Lawfare Against Trump: Who Will Be Held Accountable?byAllan J. Feifer, WND -March 15, 2024
- A
nagging question has been bothering many for the last year. Let’s say
Trump beats all or most of the 93 felony charges lodged against him by
his enemies. Who or what will hold these activist Democrats accountable
for the damage they’ve done to Trump personally and attempting one of
the largest and most organized voter-suppression conspiracies of all
time? When your detractors use the law in a way that the Supremes, in a
9-0 decision, rebuff Colorado’s attempt to disenfranchise Trump along
with another 10 states that either have or were in the process of doing
so, what’s your remedy? Remember, Trump has more cases hanging over his
head. Review the following issues that, like most things, are unique
to Trump in American jurisprudence: 1. The concept and application of
lawfare 2. Multi-jurisdiction coordination 3. Bolsterism 4. The
convoluted idea of Democratic voter suppression.....
Radical Illinois Judge Kicks President Trump Off the State’s BallotCullen Linebarger - A corrupt Cook County judge has ordered the Illinois Board of Elections to remove Donald Trump from ballots statewide for the March 19 primary. As ABC 7 News Chicago reports,
Democrat Judge Tracie Porter stripped Trump from the Illinois ballot
one month after the Illinois State Board of Elections dismissed the
anti-Trump challenge in a unanimous and bipartisan vote. Porter claimed Trump violated the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection
Clause as her excuse for removing him from the ballot. We all know Trump
did not commit insurrection or any other federal crime.......
Trump Lawyer Says Dismissal of 6 Counts in Georgia Case Exposes Prosecutorial ‘Sloppiness’ -Attorney Alina Habba said on Wednesday that a judge’s dismissal of
six counts in former President Donald Trump’s Georgia election case
shows the “sloppiness” of local prosecutors. Fulton County
Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dismissed six of the 41 counts in an
indictment against President Trump and his codefendants on Wednesday. Three
of the quashed charges apply to President Trump, throwing out counts
related to a phone call he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad
Raffensperger in the aftermath of the 2020 election......
Trump Attorney Says Documents Charges ‘Must Be Struck and Dismissed,’ - U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon on March 14 heard arguments
on two of former President Donald Trump’s several motions to dismiss a
case alleging he mishandled classified documents, rejecting one motion
by order roughly two hours after court adjourned. “Defendant’s motion is denied without prejudice,” the judge wrote regarding the motion to dismiss based on unconstitutional vagueness. Defense
attorneys had argued for dismissal of 32 counts regarding mishandling
classified documents under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and for
“unconstitutional vagueness.” However, during the hearing, Judge Cannon
seemed unconvinced that those arguments weren’t better suited to the
trial stage of the case. These were only two of several motions to
dismiss filed by the defense.
Chief Justice John Roberts decides to keep Peter Navarro in jail
-
March 19, 2024 By Victoria White Berger - As most know, Peter Navarro just asked the Supreme Court to allow him to stay out of prison while his sentence is under appeal. Chief Justice Roberts denied the request: The
Supreme Court on Monday refused to halt a prison sentence for former
Trump White House official Peter Navarro as he appeals his contempt of
Congress conviction. Navarro
is due to report Tuesday to a federal prison for a four-month sentence,
after being found guilty of misdemeanor charges for refusing to
cooperate with a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021,
attack on the U.S. Capitol. Navarro had filed an emergency appeal to stay free while he appeals his conviction........
Elise Stefanik Demands Letitia James Disbarment for ‘Lawfare Campaign’ Against Donald Trump - Wendell Husebø Republican House Conference Chair Elise
Stefanik (NY) on Tuesday issued a 64-page letter to the New York
Committee on Professional Standards demanding the disbarment of New York
Attorney General Letitia James for allegedly violating “principles of
fairness and impartiality” by engaging in “relentless lawfare” on social
media against former President Donald Trump. If James is disbarred, it would substantially increase Trump’s
chances of defeating James’ prosecution. James seeks to essentially
bankrupt Trump by calling
for a $370 million fine and a lifetime of earnings from the real estate
industry in New York State. James claims Trump committed financial
fraud. Stefanik said in a statement obtained by Breitbart News:..........
The Republican establishment begins to understand that lawfare endangers them, too- February 26, 2024 By Andrea Widburg - One of the things
that’s been vexing for many conservatives is how passive the Republican
National Committee has been when it comes to the lawfare being waged
against Donald Trump. Don’t they understand that Trump is the trial
balloon and that, if the lawfare against him is successful, it’ll be
used against all Republicans? However, an opinion piece at the Wall
Street Journal that Jeb Bush co-authored suggests that, finally, the GOP
is becoming aware of the global threat of lawfare.
Jeb
Bush Speaks Out – Warns that the Government’s Weaponization against
Donald Trump and Elon Musk Poses a Grave Threat to Business in America - Jim Hoft It’s about time. After 91 bogus lawfare indictments and over $600 million in penalties
against Donald Trump, a few honest businessmen and political leaders are
finally speaking out. The former Florida governor along with Joe Lonsdale, the co-founder
of Palantir, published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal this weekend
condemning the politicized, activist courts that are targeting
conservative leaders for political gain. This does not happen in America............
Why is no one wondering why the Trump trials have such idiotic jurors? January 28, 2024 By Patricia McCarthy - “There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.” --Montesquieu Those
of us old enough to remember the infamous trial of O.J. Simpson will
certainly remember the daily presence in the court of Jo-Ellen Demetrius, the jury consultant who determined which people among the jury pool would be likely to decide in Simpson’s favor. Few of us had heard of jury consultants then, but they’ve certainly been around since the Simpson trial. A
jury consultant’s job is to research, as closely as possible, each
prospective juror by any means necessary so that the defense can select
the persons who may be most disposed to find their client not guilty. Of
course, prosecutors hire jury consultants as well t.......How can this be legal, one might ask. It probably should not be, but
one thing is clear: Juries are rarely a “jury of one’s peers”
anymore. They are carefully and deceptively chosen. We can be certain
that jury consultants were hired to select the people who would sit in
judgment of President Trump for each of the numerous trials to which he
has been so unfairly subjected......
Judge McAfee Ruling Is The Latest Blow to Public Trust in Government - March 20, 2024 By Greg Salsbury -Pew tells us that in seven decades of polling, public trust in our federal government has reached a new low, with only 16 percent
expressing belief that they will “do what is right.” This number
compares to nearly three-quarters of Americans who expressed such trust
in 1958 when the National Election Study began asking the question.
Trust had reached a three-decade high following 9/11, but the last
decade has taken a sharp toll on governmental credibility. Why? Quite simply, of late, the unbelievability of the government’s positions and actions has escalated significantly:.....Last week, Judge McAfee’s ruling in the Georgia racketeering against
President Trump and associates contributed to the lawfare farce. The
District Attorney, Fani Willis, hired and paid her boyfriend, Nathan
Wade, some $650k for his services as lead prosecutor despite his
complete lack of experience with much beyond traffic cases. Wade used
that money to purchase expensive dinners, hotels, and exotic vacations
for both of them. Willis claims she repaid him in cash despite the
absence of a receipt or notation for any of it........
