Posted Originally on the CTH on August 23, 2023 | Sundance
There’s no reason to chase down soundbites of Adderall Ron taking Casey’s meds again and nodding wide-eyed like a bobblehead going over a railroad track, or Chris Christie taking coordinated payments from the corporations to hit Trump, or wind-testing Nikki looking to formulate her positions based on audience cheers and jeers, or Mike Pence waxing philosophically about distractions to his swamp defense, or any of the other myriad of transparently obvious motives and intentions of the corporate consulting class.
A person really only needs to watch this one segment to see all of the machinations from Fox News in alignment with the actors on stage.
Starting with the ever-insufferable Martha MacCallum teeing up the pretense with the oft familiar Bret Baier raise your hand question. There is so much in this segment, you guys -super smart and full of intellectual honesty- just write about it in the comment section, and I will enjoy a non-pretending review.
Full credit to Ramaswamy for his non pretense, and the brilliant stare at Adderall Ron as he awaits the poll testing followers. Ramaswamy leads, then the South Carolina coalition join, then Bergum goes limp up, then Ron looks over and realizes he better join, which triggers Pence and finally Krispy. It’s all perfect. All of it. Perfect in the way it encapsulates the entire field of followers. Just perfect.
Additionally, I cannot stop laughing at the human cabbage patch doll, Bret Baier, needing to turn around to the audience to protect Krispy from the jeers. Too much funny – all of it. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on August 23, 2023 | Sundance
Former Fox News pundit and current podcaster Dan Bongino has a suggestion for the team around Donald Trump that is rather remarkable.
According to media reports and seemingly affirmed the Truth Social account of President Trump, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis is demanding a $200,000 bond for President Trump due to his being a flight risk. Bongino is suggesting President Trump call their bluff tomorrow and not post the bond. Here’s his reasoning. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on August 17, 2023 | Sundance
President Trump has confirmed he will not be participating in the Fox News debate scheduled for August 23rd. The insufferable Martha MacCallum and Bret Baier will be moderating the first loser Republican primary discussion where leaked information from Ron DeSantis debate prep has been revealed.
Meanwhile the Never Back Down SuperPAC supporting Ron DeSantis has shared their goals and objectives with the New York Times.
Hundreds of pages of blunt advice, memos and internal polling were posted online by the main super PAC backing the Florida governor, offering an extraordinary glimpse into his operation’s thinking.
Ron DeSantis needs “to take a sledgehammer” to Vivek Ramaswamy, the political newcomer who is rising in the polls. He should “defend Donald Trump” when Chris Christie inevitably attacks the former president. And he needs to “attack Joe Biden and the media” no less than three to five times.
[…] “There are four basic must-dos,” one of the memos urges Mr. DeSantis, whom the document refers to as “GRD.”
[…] “1. Attack Joe Biden and the media 3-5 times. 2. State GRD’s positive vision 2-3 times. 3. Hammer Vivek Ramaswamy in a response. 4. Defend Donald Trump in absentia in response to a Chris Christie attack.”
The documents were posted this week on the website of Axiom Strategies, the company owned by Jeff Roe, the chief strategist of Mr. DeSantis’s super PAC, Never Back Down.
The New York Times was alerted to the existence of the documents by a person not connected to the DeSantis campaign or the super PAC. After The Times reached out to Never Back Down for comment on Thursday, the group removed from the website a key memo summarizing the suggested strategy for the debate. (more) Direct link below
QUESTION: What is your legal opinion of former AG Barr and this judge in Florida? Barr seems to trash Trump with every breath he takes, and the media seems to emphasize that Trump appointed this judge, so she is biased over the whole grand jury issue. It would be great to hear your perspective.
Thanks
FG
ANSWER: Former AG Barr, I believe, is one of the Swamp creatures. I would not trust a single word he ever says he is protecting the Swamp. As for a legal mind, he is avoiding the very intent behind the Constitution. As for this “Donald Trump-appointed judge” overseeing the criminal case into his handling of classified documents in Florida questioning special counsel Jack Smith, she is correct. If Smith tries to appeal anything with that regard, I would take this matter, shove it down his throat, and go to the Supreme Court ASAP.
The entire Sixth Amendment was constructed on this very type of abuse of power by the former king. He would indict you in England and then arrest you in America, transport you to his selected jury who was anti-America. You were always found guilty for political purposes. I would add that at the time of the American Revolution, there were about 240 felonies, and they all carried the death penalty. It is critical to look at both the 5th and 6th Amendments, and you will get a sense that what Smith is doing is circumventing the Constitution by indicting Trump in Washington using a pro-government jury. Still, he has to prosecute him in Florida under the 6th Amendment.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
You cannot be prosecuted in California for a crime in Florida or out of state. That is the Venue clause to be tried where the crime was committed, NOT the most favorable place to win a conviction. What Smith is doing is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and it is treason. He is doing what the king used to do only because the Sixth Amendment does not expressly state that the grand jury must also be where the crime is committed. Up to now, I have never heard of getting indicted in one state and prosecuted in another. The reason also implies that, in many instances, state law also applies. The Erie Doctrine is a binding principle where federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction apply federal procedural law of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but must also apply state substantive law.
To explain this principle, the Erie Doctrine stems from the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 US 64 (1938). Then you have the Rules Decision Act of 1789 (28 U.S.C. § 1652), which established the very foundation for how federal courts were to function under such a diverse jurisdiction providing that the “laws of the several states” apply in federal court. I fail to see how you can indict someone in one state under the governing state laws and then prosecute someone in another. That would be like taking a California law saying it is child abuse not to inform your child they may change their gender and then prosecute them in Texas, where the law is precisely different using a California indictment. This is a clever scheme Smith has pulled off, and anyone who sees no problem with this is politically biased.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Now let us turn to the Fifth Amendment requiring a grand jury indictment. It does not state one district v another because the Constitution under Article III only created the Supreme Court – NOT the distinct Courts. They are all the creation of Congress by statute, and Congress has no power to shut down the Supreme Court or really to even regulate it. Therefore, the Grand Jury Clause did not consider multiple districts, for there were none at that time. The indictment was to be where the crime was to be charged. Any other interpretation would be a constructive amendment of the Constitution which cannot be done by any prosecutor and not even Congress without the complete Amendment Process of the states.
Procedural & Substantive Due Process of Law
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That said, Due Process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded. No individual is to be subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government power, which Smith has clearly done. There is no precedent for his actions. A fundamental threshold issue in Due Process is whether the government conduct being examined as criminal determines whether the procedure is offensive to the concept of fundamental fairness. Smith has abused his power, and if I were on the Supreme Court, I would have to vote for dismissing the indictment with prejudice — meaning that terminates the case because of his abuse of power.
In U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), the Supreme Court indicated that substantive due process would apply to: “rights enumerated in and derived from the first Eight Amendments to the Constitution, the right to participate in the political process, such as the rights of voting, association, and free speech, and the rights of ‘discrete and insular minorities.’” Following Carolene Products, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that fundamental rights protected by substantive due process are those deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition, viewed in light of evolving social norms.
If I were Trump’s lawyers, I would file a motion to dismiss based on a Substantive Due Process of Law violation.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 14, 2023 | Sundance
The Fulton County clerk of courts has uploaded a 98-page criminal indictment against President Trump and 18 alleged coconspirators. [PDF HERE]
First thing to notice, the released indictment is identical to the one the clerk said was not accurate earlier today. Meaning, two things: (1) the indictment was generated before the “special grand jury” voted; and (2) the Fulton County clerk of courts lied. Nice way to start the review, huh?
Defendants include, Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell and a host of villainous villains who did allegedly perpetrated villainy in the Peachtree state.
Posted originally on the CTH August 14, 2023 | Sundance
The Fulton County DA Fani Willis might as well use the term “eleventy” as the absurdity of her two year “special grand jury” reportedly culminates in ten indictments against President Trump for conspiring to defeat Democrats in the 2020 election.
If Willis has her full prosecutorial discretion advanced, they will tie Trump’s hands and legs and throw him in a river. If he floats, he’s guilty, if he sinks and drowns, he’s likely innocent. The “special” Fulton County, GA, brand of justice. All of it is absurd.
(Via NBC) – A Georgia grand jury returned 10 indictments today in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ sweeping investigation into whether Donald Trump and the former president’s allies attempted to overturn the 2020 election. The defendants have not been revealed yet. (read more)
Seriously, at this point in our national nuttery, even the moonbats on the left can see the absurd nature of the constructs. Meanwhile, the GOPe, particularly those who claim to be “constitutional conservatives“, will wax philosophically and pretend they cannot see the complete shredding of our Constitution taking place around them.
No weapon formed against us shall prosper. Remember that!
Posted originally on the CTH on August 9, 2023 | Sundance
Most close watchers already knew the motive and intention of the J6 committee was to build narratives useful against their political opposition and the 2022 midterm election cycle. Factually, the makeup of the J6 committee was specifically structured for this intention.
That said, this remarkable statement by former J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson is essentially admitting the committee destroyed evidence that undermined their preconceived notions.
After being questioned by republicans about the absence of evidence provided to the committee, former Chairman Bennie Thomson says:
…”Consistent with guidance from the Office of the Clerk and other authorities, the Select Committee did not archive temporary committee records that were not elevated by the Committee’s actions, such as use in hearings or official publications, or those that did not further its investigative activities. Accordingly, and contrary to your letter’s implication, the Select Committee was not obligated to archive all video recordings of transcribed interviews or depositions.
Based on guidance from House authorities, the Select Committee determined that the written transcripts provided by nonpartisan, professional official reporters, which the witnesses and Select Committee staff had the opportunity to review for errata, were the official, permanent records of transcribed interviews and depositions for the purposes of rule VII.”… (READ MORE)
“Guidance from House authorities” is political code speak for House counsel.
Who do you think was counsel for the House J6 Committee?
One of the key House J6 counselors, giving advice to destroy evidence that ran against their narrative, was at the epicenter of all Trump targeting while in office.
Posted Originally on the CTH on August 7, 2023 | Sundance
Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon denied a DOJ request to keep evidence sealed in the Mar-a-Lago documents case against President Donald J Trump. Additionally, Cannon has demanded that Special Counsel Jack Smith explain why he is using an out of district grand jury to construct additional charges against the defendant. [2-page ruling pdf here]
Cannon has presided over the document issues even before the indictment against Donald Trump was unsealed. As a result, she has a good frame of reference for the Lawfare tactics the Special Counsel is attempting to deploy.
Apparently, the DOJ doesn’t want defendant Waltine Nauta to have the same attorney as someone who might also be a co-defendant or witness in the case. A “Garcia Hearing refers to hearing held under criminal procedure to ensure that a defendant who is one of two or more defendants represented by the same attorney realizes the following:
1.that there is a risk of conflict of interest inherent in the joint representation; 2.that s/he is entitled to the services of an attorney who does not represent anyone else in the defendant’s case.”
Judge Cannon denied the DOJ request to keep filings sealed in the case and she removed sealed filings from the record. Cannon also asked for prosecutors to provide additional explanations about their continued use of a DC jury in the case, which is situated in Florida.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
This guy really is the worst of the worst. I do not think I could dislike him more. Remember, Bill Barr appointed John Durham officially as a special counsel quietly without informing the public in October of 2020, specifically intended to block President Trump from declassifying any documents prior to the 2020 election. We do not discover the official appointment until December, after the 2020 election.
The intent of the Durham appointment was to create the oft used silo of an “ongoing investigation” to block inquiry and/or action by President Trump. The entire process of the DC silo deployment is one long continuum, as we have previously outlined. Michael Horowitz was an investigative silo (blocking document release), Robert Mueller was an investigative silo (threats of obstruction blocking document release), John Durham was an investigative silo (blocking document release), and ultimately, now Jack Smith is an investigative silo, retrieving documents from Mar-a-Lago and blocking document release.
You will note that every single one of John Durham’s investigative pathways was to look at Trump-Russia fabrication and corruption outside government, outside Washington DC. None of the Durham investigation was focused inside government or inside the institutions that he and Bill Barr were protecting. Bill Barr was the Bondo, John Durham was the spray paint.
Today, Bill Barr when asked if he would testify against President Trump, says “of course” he would. WATCH:
MAJOR GARRETT: We turn now to Bill Barr, who served as former president’s attorney general until he resigned following the 2020 election. Bill, it’s good to see you.
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Good to see you.
MAJOR GARRETT: Last time you’re on the show, you said “the January 6 case will be a hard case to make because of First Amendment interest.” Having read the indictment, is that still your view?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, it’s- it’s certainly a challenging case, but I don’t I don’t think it runs afoul of the First Amendment. There’s a lot of confusion about this out there. Maybe I can crystallize it. This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states, and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress. The allegation essentially by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.
MAJOR GARRETT: To disenfranchise people?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Right. And there were a number of things that were alleged. One of them is that they tried to bully the state authorities to withdraw their certification by citing instances of fraud and what the- and what the indictment says is, the stuff that they were spouting, they knew was wrong, and false. This is not a question of what his subjective idea was as to whether he won or lost. They’re saying what you were saying consistently, the stuff you were spouting, you knew was wrong. But it’s not- if that was all it was about, I would be concerned on First Amendment front, but they go beyond that. And the other elements were the substitution of bogus panels, that were not authorized panels, to claim that they had alternative votes. And then they- and that was clearly wrong, and the certifications they signed, were false. But then pressuring the Vice President to use that as a pretext to adopt the Trump votes, and reject the Biden votes, or even to delay it, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s to delay it, or to adopt it, or to send it to the House of Representatives. You have to remember, a conspiracy crime is completed at the time it’s agreed to and the first steps are taken.
MAJOR GARRETT: That’s it?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: That’s when the crime is complete.
MAJOR GARRETT: From a prosecutor’s point of view, is this a case you would have brought?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, from a prosecutor’s standpoint, I think it’s a legitimate case.
MAJOR GARRETT: But from an Attorney General’s point of view?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: But I think there are other considerations, and I would have taken those into account. But I’ve also said consistently, really, the rubicon was passed here, when- when Attorney General Garland picked Smith, because the kinds of decisions, the kinds of judgments that would say don’t bring the case, really have to be made by the Attorney General. And he picked a prosecutor. And I think at that point, the decision was, if there’s a case, we’re going to bring it. That’s when the rubicon was passed.
MAJOR GARRETT: Were you interviewed by the Special Counsel?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I’m not going to get into any discussions–
MAJOR GARRETT: Would you appear as a witness if called?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Of course.
Major Garrett: Could you describe your interactions with the President on this question about whether or not he won or lost and what you told him?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I wasn’t discussed- well, I go through that in my book in painstaking detail, but on three occasions, at least, and I- I told him in no uncertain terms, that there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome that we–
[CROSSTALK]
MAJOR GARRETT: — One of those associated with a Trump’s defense team had said, if you were called as a witness, they would cross examine you, and pierce all of that by asking you questions that you couldn’t, to their mind, credibly answer about how thorough that investigation was that led you to tell the President what you told him? How thorough was that investigation?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I- I think it satisfied us that there was no basis for concluding that there had been fraud in those instances. Some of them are obvious, okay. One that he keeps on repeating is, you know, that there were more- that more people voted then absentee ballots that were requested, and that was mixing apples and oranges. And once that was explained to him, we should- we should have heard no more about that. Others required further investigation, interviews and so forth and those were done.
MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden. On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said, “I think it’s being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department.” This is the Hunter Biden investigation. “And to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel.” Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: No, because the–
MAJOR GARRETT: To which? To which? Should one be appointed now?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: When I was the attorney- in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have, a conflict of interest. I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict it would be Garland’s, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary. I felt that if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably, or the administration, would have just canceled the investigation, and I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place. But once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done and was being done fairly.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has- has been conducted?
[CROSSTALK]
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well I did agree with the- the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.
MAJOR GARRETT: Is that time passed?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there’s not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously. And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he’s done–
MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Yeah. Yes.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden, and if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Okay, well remember- one thing I stress is those are two different questions. Right? And, you know, things can be shameful without being illegal. And I- yes, I thought- I think it’s grotesque, cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I- I think it’s legitimate. It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that’s one of the things I’m concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.
MAJOR GARRETT: You’re concerned still, whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I don’t know. I would like to hear about it. I mean, some of the whistleblowers raised concerns in my mind, there’s reasons- before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy, but after the election, I don’t see reasons for deferring investigative steps. And apparently someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics? You know, after the election, that it was the president elect’s son, that’s not a reason not to investigate.
MAJOR GARRETT: William Barr, we thank you for your time very, very much. “Face the Nation” will be back in just one moment. Please stay with us.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 3, 2023 | Sundance
Ugh, it’s the Mrs. Hannity show; unfortunately, it’s the venue for President Trump’s attorney John Lauro to outline the defense perspective. If you can get beyond the pontificating of Ingraham, the interview is good to see the legal context and reference points of Mr. Lauro. WATCH:
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 