Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2024 12:39 am
Biden should bring back Jeh Johnson as DHS & enforce the immigration laws as Obama did when Biden was his VP.
Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/03/ ... p-lawfare/
Cutting through the Fog of Anti-Trump Lawfare
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, March 11, 2024
We are committed to sorting out for our readers this unprecedented gauntlet of prosecutorial action.
What’s real, and what’s hyperbole? It is not always easy to tell in the unprecedented lawfare campaign being pursued against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee by Democratic prosecutors — including the special counsel appointed by the Justice Department of the incumbent president, who just happens to be the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The lawfare campaign I just mentioned has been humming for a couple of years. Much of that has been preliminary scutwork, preparing to make civil suits and criminal indictments a daily fact of life in the 2024 campaign.
A pernicious development in American politics and governance? Absolutely. Still, that doesn’t mean former president Trump’s opposition has manufactured the cases against him — at least not all of them. As always, he is part victim and part his own worst enemy.
The Supreme Court cases are a prime example. It’s only March, yet the justices have already had to intervene twice in 2024 electoral politics. The last thing they want is entanglement in this web, just like every sensible American should want no part of a system in which incumbent partisans exploit legal processes to force the courts into the posture of deciding elections.
It’s the dream of progressives: If they win the cases, the public is denied the right to elect leaders the Left opposes; if they lose the cases, they agitate to pack the Supreme Court and turn it into a super-legislature that imposes the progressive policy wish list — an objective, by the way, that they are closer to achieving than FDR ever was.
Former president Trump would have you think everything is rigged against him. His opponents would have you think Trump’s appointed judges have rigged everything in his favor. They are both wrong, of course, as self-interested spin on complex legal issues is wont to be.
A few days back, the justices turned aside a scheme to remove the former president from the ballot under the 14th Amendment by branding him as an “insurrectionist” — despite the small inconvenience that neither Trump nor any of the over 1,200 people prosecuted over the events of January 6, 2021, has even been charged with, let alone convicted of, the insurrection crime that’s been on the books for nearly 150 years. Trump supporters swooned about the majesty of American justice, and the commentariat seethed.
A few weeks from now, though, when the Court tackles Trump’s claim to be immune from criminal prosecution, expect the roles to be reversed. The thing is, the Court won’t have changed. How to go about sorting right from wrong won’t have changed.
...the 14th Amendment ...was a pernicious gambit and ...the justices, though philosophically diverse, would lopsidedly reject it.
...with presidential immunity: ...the principle of placing no one above the law has lived harmoniously for over two centuries with a norm against subjecting presidents to prosecution; ...politicized prosecutions challenge that harmony just as abuse of executive power does; why the justices were right to take the immunity case, despite howling from Trump’s opponents, and why they would be right to reject sweeping immunity claims, despite howling from Trump’s supporters.
And understand: It’s going to be every day.
The former president and his company have been under prosecution and lawsuits by elected progressive Democrats in New York for three years. Now, with the 2024 campaign in full swing, the presumptive GOP nominee faces the possibility of nine months tethered to courtrooms — in late March, a six-week state criminal trial in Manhattan; after that, the Biden Justice Department’s special counsel is pushing to try him in Florida in July and, astonishingly, in Washington, D.C., from around Labor Day through Election Day in November.
It’s an unprecedented gauntlet. And it’s a mixed bag: a crusade to use courts as a proxy for failed impeachment, to transmogrify morally and politically appalling conduct into imprisonable crime by tenuous prosecutorial theories, and — through selective prosecution and the sheer number of cases — to beat an opponent into submission, heedless of what the demolition of due process portends for the rule of law.
dude....we get it, you won't be voting for the guy. Same turd ..... for almost ten years.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 7:48 am Here is Trump's immunity brief to the SCOTUS, if any of you are interested. The lies start in the very first sentence of the introduction. Very much on brand.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tioner.pdf
I’m still choking over the Supreme Court’s use of the word “enjoy” in the question presented. Enjoy? How about “have”?Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 7:48 am Here is Trump's immunity brief to the SCOTUS, if any of you are interested. The lies start in the very first sentence of the introduction. Very much on brand.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tioner.pdf
Are you referring to Nixon "facing" criminal charges? That's certainly correct, if by "facing" it implies charges were likely to be brought.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 7:48 am Here is Trump's immunity brief to the SCOTUS, if any of you are interested. The lies start in the very first sentence of the introduction. Very much on brand.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tioner.pdf
Are you asking me? Or the crazy person?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 1:13 pmAre you referring to Nixon "facing" criminal charges? That's certainly correct, if by "facing" it implies charges were likely to be brought.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 7:48 am Here is Trump's immunity brief to the SCOTUS, if any of you are interested. The lies start in the very first sentence of the introduction. Very much on brand.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tioner.pdf
Or others as well?
I was wondering what you meant by lying in the first sentence.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 1:38 pmAre you asking me? Or the crazy person?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 1:13 pmAre you referring to Nixon "facing" criminal charges? That's certainly correct, if by "facing" it implies charges were likely to be brought.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 7:48 am Here is Trump's immunity brief to the SCOTUS, if any of you are interested. The lies start in the very first sentence of the introduction. Very much on brand.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tioner.pdf
Or others as well?
It is absolutely unconscionable that the Republican Party and, evidently, millions of Americans, are ready to return this criminal insurrectionist to the White House.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 6:56 amAnd then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.
Yup. Pretty depressing when you think about it.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 7:13 amIt is absolutely unconscionable that the Republican Party and, evidently, millions of Americans, are ready to return this criminal insurrectionist to the White House.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 6:56 amAnd then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.
It can't happen. These people need to wake the fork up.
..
Thanks for posting this. It is indeed worth a read. Extraordinarily well written, and in layman’s terms, so anybody can understand it. That is, if they choose to do so.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 6:56 am Worth a read:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .272.0.pdf
And then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.
Appreciate that, thanks.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 6:56 am Worth a read:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .272.0.pdf
And then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.
I doubt you could find a person who doesn't, in concept and insofar as intentions, agrees with you on that. But the criminal justice system -- particularly in the States' Courts -- is astoundingly underfunded...and thus relies on plea deals to grease an old and dilapidated engine.youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 10:01 amAppreciate that, thanks.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 6:56 am Worth a read:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .272.0.pdf
And then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.
I only wish this judges logic was equally applied to all those felons running around with plea deals for violent crimes.
Yes, and youth, it should be noted that Johnatakis did Not seek a plea, rather he claimed to be a "sovereign citizen" beyond the reach of the US justice system. He preplanned his violence, led others in violence, and in so doing committed numerous violent felonies as well as various misdemeanors. Found guilty of such by a jury based on a wealth of clear evidence. He represented himself in court, and showed little to no convincing remorse. The judge indicates that he believes that Johnatakis would repeat the violence if given the opportunity. The judge indicates that many of the letters in support of the defendant claim he didn't do anything wrong...Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 10:55 amI doubt you could find a person who doesn't, in concept and insofar as intentions, agrees with you on that. But the criminal justice system -- particularly in the States' Courts -- is astoundingly underfunded...and thus relies on plea deals to grease an old and dilapidated engine.youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 10:01 amAppreciate that, thanks.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 6:56 am Worth a read:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .272.0.pdf
And then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.
I only wish this judges logic was equally applied to all those felons running around with plea deals for violent crimes.
..Given the lengthy delays in former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial for federal election subversion, it’s time for the Department of Justice to face facts: Special counsel Jack Smith will likely have only one chance before the November election to tell the public the story of Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump’s role in it. That opportunity will occur not in front of a jury of ordinary citizens, but before the nine justices of the Supreme Court on April 25, when they consider whether Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for his efforts to remain in the office American voters had decided he must surrender.
Smith is in possession of the fullest story of the events culminating in Jan. 6: a rich and vivid catalog of witness testimony, documents, texts, and emails that even the House committee that investigated the insurrection has never seen or heard. He is ready to display that material before a federal jury in a public trial. But through a series of procedural filings, Trump has managed to move the locus of the case from a trial judge’s courtroom in the District of Columbia to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The court now stands as the sole arbiter of the calendar in the case of United States v. Trump. That’s not because a majority of the justices are likely to rule that Trump is immune from prosecution—that outcome is too far-fetched for even the most cynical observers. It’s because the court, with its gradual process of briefing, argument, deliberation and ruling, even on an expedited basis, completely controls whether a trial and verdict can happen before the inauguration of whoever stands on the Capitol steps in January 2025.
Smith, of course, has a duty to prevail in the Supreme Court on his plainly correct legal argument that Trump is not immune. But as a special prosecutor in one of the most consequential criminal matters in American history, Smith also has a duty to inform the public—especially if the immunity appeal becomes his sole chance to do so in a court of law before voters cast their ballots in November.