Posted originally on the CTH on July 2, 2024 | Sundance
James Clyburn and Barack Obama are the two democrats who could unilaterally remove Joe Biden by withdrawing their support. It must frustrate Jill Biden to know The Lightbringer and the Ballot Master have that kind of leverage over her appointments at Tiffanys.
As a result of this dynamic, we remind everyone to pay close attention to how Clyburn and Obama are indicating their position.
Additionally, it is worth remembering how Obama and Clyburn agreed on Kamala Harris as the VP selection in 2020, and informed Joe Biden who would be on his ticket. The Jussie Smollet operation was still active when Kamala was installed with Biden.
During an MSNBC interview today, James Clyburn expressed support for Kamala Harris to ascend the top of the ticket if Biden makes the decision to remove himself.
Keep in mind, Biden will not quit. The decision to exit will be made for Biden, and within the departure process all deference will be given to the Biden group to shape their exit.
The Obama/Clyburn professionally Democratic power brokers within the DNC collective will make the decision; Biden will just be given the opportunity to make it look like it’s his choice. That’s the way Democrats roll.
"No. This party should not, in any way, do anything to work around Ms. Harris. We should do everything we can to bolster her whether she's in second place or at the top of the ticket."
Most astute political followers can predict that “racism” is once again going to be a big part of the campaign strategy to defeat President Trump. However, after years of beating the same drum with louder and louder severity, the grievance industry has run into the risk of creating deaf ears.
The DNC operation (Obama/BLM network) concentrates heavily on the ballot harvesting. However, when they turn those ballots over to the county level precinct workers, that’s where the AME church network and South Carolina Representative James Clyburn come into play. {GO DEEP}
Posted originally on the CTH on July 2, 2024 | Sundance
The tip of the Lawfare spear consists of a small group of former DOJ attorneys and Main Justice leftists who helped AG Eric Holder create the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) when it was formed on behalf of President Obama.
Lawfare, writ large, are a tribe of leftists who strategically weaponize the justice systems within the DOJ. They are also the main guides, strategists and legal analysts who previously used Robert Mueller and currently use Jack Smith.
The tribe is led by a trio of fellow travelers: Mary McCord, Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann.
If you research the group, you will discover that Mary McCord sits at the center of every attack approach deployed against President Trump {CITATION}. The influence of McCord cannot be overstated, while gender fluid leftists like Eisen, Weissmann (and others), wax philosophically about which statutes can be twisted and interpreted to assist their Lawfare strategy du jour.
Everything we have watched unfold, from using “The Logan Act” against Michael Flynn, to using “The Insurrection Act” against President Trump and the J-6 targets, comes from this small crew of effeminate leftists.
The similarity of the Lawfare behavioral proclivities is an outcome of their tribal synchronicity. Much like the McClintock or Wellesley effect, when you isolate Lawfare individuals into a small tribe, their collective behaviors replicate.
This crew of Brookings funded Lawfare ideologues was also described by Christine Blasey-Ford as her “Beach Friends.” Since leaving official government positions, the key trio of leadership congregate professionally on MSNBC and feed the leftists in media and politics from their primary cable outlet.
I noted, during a recent flight filled with DC bureaucrats and IC officials (United Airlines), how they all watched MSNBC on their seat monitors as if it was a religious service that needed to be attended. It really was a sight to see. Every bureaucrat, active or retired, seated with their laptop under the headrest monitor while typing, texting and DM’ing in unison like synchronized swimmers.
That experience was the first time I realized how the term “NPC’s” or non-Player Characters might have originated as a meme, but the label was eerily accurate.
FBI HQ left, Main Justice building right
The alarming aspect to the tribal Lawfare approach, is to realize how this essentially very small group of former DOJ-NSD lawyers commands such an oversized influence on our national politics.
In reality, this crew is likely less than 20 full-time characters with about a half-dozen lawyers used as spokespeople. Essentially, the public voice to keep the hardcore leftists on the optimal message. However, this group also writes the legal strategies for all of the attack approaches used in Atlanta, Georgia (Fani Willis), New York (Alvin Bragg) and DC/FL with Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Within Main Justice, it is Deputy AG Lisa Monaco who takes the Lawfare instructions from the outside group and funnels them back into actionable work within the DOJ (ie to Jack Smith). It’s a similar process as to how the inside and outside group coordinated and used Robert Mueller.
Andrew Weissmann, Mary McCord and Norm Eisen (with occasional guests), can be seen daily watching very closely how their legal briefs, citations and structured legal motions are being used. Yes, it is their written words, their legal briefs, and their filings that are signed by the government officials and submitted into multiple judicial venues.
♦ Well, that’s who they are…. So, we cannot say we don’t know the exact names of the people at the epicenter of the operation, and you do not need to read the proverbial overuse of the word “they” without knowing exactly who they are.
With the Supreme Court ruling yesterday on presidential immunity, the Lawfare group is absolutely apoplectic and fraught with anxiety about it.
Why?
Why this much extreme vitriol?
The answer is very simple. Andrew Weissmann speaks about the exact reason in this soundbite. Listen at the 01:37 point, when Weissmann says the ruling now puts the President in charge of the DOJ-NSD. THAT reality is beyond alarming to a group who have lived in a world where they were untouchable. WATCH:
What exactly is the background here?
This is where CTH readers are miles ahead, at least a year ahead, of where the reality of this story will eventually end up. Andrew Weissmann is concerned because the Supreme Court just put the DOJ-NSD back into a box where they are accountable within the Executive Branch.
Remember, Barack Obama and Eric Holder created the DOJ-NSD using the authorities granted to the administrative state by the bureaucracy following 9/11. Specifically, because the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) was created, and within that dynamic the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was established. DHS would now be the weaponized umbrella organization, and the power granted to the DNI would establish the need for the DOJ-NSD.
In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.
What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms, so that only their ideological opposition became the target of the new national security system. This is very important to understand as you dig deeper.
Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01. DHS came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed. When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.
Eric Holder created the DOJ-National Security Division for exactly the purpose of weaponizing the DOJ to target their political opposition. This is what the DOJ-NSD does under the auspices of “National Security.” The FARA violation monitoring is one of the more well-known operations within the DOJ-NSD, and from that construct you find the original justification for the NSA database monitoring.
The surveillance of Americans shifted around the roles and responsibilities within Main Justice after the DOJ-NSD was created. The National Security Division took over Foreign Agent Registration Act monitoring as well as FISA. Both FARA and FISA required some form of downstream surveillance within the authority of the NSD.
The FBI counterintelligence division became the investigative offshoot to assist the NSD, and due to the tightrope of legal compliance issues, lawyers from the NSD were dispatched into the FBI to give legal assistance on the surveillance side. This is how NSD lawyers like Lisa Page, Tashina Guahar and Kevin Clinesmith end up encircling FBI officials like Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe.
Within this newly created DOJ-NSD, there was no inspector general oversight, so the internal officials were unaccountable, had no reason to worry about anyone looking at them, and they were generally running amok. In 2015 the Office of the DOJ Inspector General requested oversight, and it was Deputy AG Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.
We discover just how ridiculous and partisan the NSD became through the outcomes of the Hillary Clinton investigation. The Clinton investigation was operated by the FBI and the unaccountable DOJ-NSD.
Yesterday, in a stunning opinion that destabilized the Lawfare ideologues, the Supreme Court affirmed the Unitary Executive principle around the constitution.
The 6-3 opinion held that the President is “a person alone who comprises a branch of government.” This is important to understand. The Executive Branch is the President.
As noted by reader Alex1689: […] Read the SCOTUS opinion, not from a point of view of apprehension about President Trump (he’ll be fine), but from the point of view of what does this allow him to do in his second term, and what straightjackets does it remove that were a threat during his first term?
To start, the court wrote about powers that carry with them core, absolute immunity, the exercise of which cannot come under question in any forum. It specifically identified:
Pardons
Recognition of foreign governments
Removal of executive branch officials.
If it can’t be questioned . . . It also cannot be the grounds for impeachment, can it?
Let’s repeat: If it’s a core power, the exercise of the core power cannot be grounds for impeachment (*except if done in connection with taking a bribe).
In his first term, there was the threat that if President Trump fired . . .
Rosenstein Barr Fauci
That he would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice or impeached.
That threat is forever off the table now.
He can fire anyone he likes in the executive branch. The straightjacket is gone.
On that point, further, the majority opinion uses strong language consistent with the Unitary Executive theory of the Constitution. The President is “a person alone who comprises a branch of government.”
While there are areas of shared constitutional responsibility, the core powers of the Executive Branch, including personnel, are the President’s alone.
While impeachment is a political process within the Legislative Branch, and the Supreme Court is extremely hesitant to overstep their role therein, they did put this sentiment clearly into the opinion about immunity: …“The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.”…
Congress may not criminalize the conduct of the President simply for carrying out his core executive branch duties. Removal of Executive Branch officials is a core duty, an official act, carrying absolute immunity.
That newly affirmed reality is exactly why Andrew Weissmann and the Lawfare crowd are very alarmed.
Posted originally on the CTH on July 2, 2024 | Sundance
In a letter to Judge Merchan earlier today, New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg is asking for a postponement of sentencing.
Regardless of the corrupt Lawfare trial outcome, the Supreme Court ruling around presidential immunity has thrown a wrench into the former prosecution’s case.
Alvin Bragg used evidence, within the trial, that has been deemed by the Supreme court to be inadmissible. President Trump’s lawyers are filing a motion to overturn the judgement based on the SCOTUS ruling. Bragg now requests additional time to review the Lawfare consequences and construct his own legal strategy.
As pointed out by attorney Jeff Clark – […] “Bragg agrees that Trump has filed a motion to dismiss the New York charges in light of yesterday’s immunity ruling. The Manhattan DA needs until July 24 to respond.
Also, Bragg admits that the legal effect of Trump’s ruling + their requested extension meaning that Trump should not be sentenced in New York until the motion is resolved.
This means that if Bragg gets his extension (which he will), the earliest Judge Merchan could deny a motion to dismiss the case and reset sentencing would be July 25. And that would be only after studying the matter for a single day, which should be insufficient. And doesn’t even consider oral argument on the motion if that gets held.
The Republican Convention is from July 15-18, so Trump will not be sentenced before the Convention!
On balance of all factors, the earliest Trump gets sentenced is realistically now some day in August.
And in reality, the whole case should get tossed before then. (Source)
According to Politico, the sentencing has been delayed until September 18th.
NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s sentencing in his Manhattan criminal case has been delayed until Sept. 18 so that the former president can present new arguments that his conviction should be tossed out in light of Monday’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
The sentencing, which had been set for July 11, will now take place less than two months before Election Day. (link)
“if such is still necessary”…. lol
When you look at the issue through a Lawfare prism, things start to take on a different context. Perhaps one of the reasons Bragg is making this request for a delay is that the Lawfare team are now a little overwhelmed.
The SCOTUS immunity ruling means McCord, Weissmann, Eisen et al, have to restructure the strategy and instructions in 4 separate cases, simultaneously, involving Trump and the Supreme Court ruling.
All those legal motions, counter predictive responses, and legal arguments are now needed almost simultaneously. As a result, the Lawfare group needs more time.
The district attorneys (New York / Atlanta) and Special Counsel Jack Smith will not be asking for more time simply because Trump’s legal team are requesting it. The prosecution teams will likely be requesting time on behalf of Weissmann/Eisen et al, to be proactive with a new strategy and Lawfare approach.
In essence, the ever-present *strategic benefit* of scale, the collective Lawfare weight (4 venues) against the individual target Trump, has now become a strategic liability as an outcome of the SCOTUS ruling.
All four venues will need responsiveness simultaneously. Weissmann, Eisen, McCord, Berke, Goldman, etc will now be burning the midnight oil trying to catch up.
I anticipate far fewer appearances on MSNBC cable, because they will not have time.
Your future will be utterly destroyed because of these Neocons who are consumed with personal hatred of Russians. They are pushing American policymakers, arguing that Putin is bluffing and we can, therefore, destroy Russia, and he will never fire a shot. They insist that Putin won’t put his money where his mouth is regarding escalation. Adam Kinzinger, who is the classic Neocon – a Republican congressman from Illinois who jumped ship and ran to CNN so he could preach World War III after losing the election because of his views. He is now CNN’s senior political commentator. This is the same Adam Kinzinger who insanely claimed that we could “TAKE OUT” Russia in three days! I guess we could wipe out China in 4.5 days and then rule the world so nobody will retaliate. I have NEVER heard such reckless commentary in my entire life. And he is joined by another Neocon, Ben Hodges, a retired United States Army officer who served as commanding general of United States Army Europe.
We have a very dangerous situation brewing, and Neocons are just so consumed by their personal hatred they are threatening civilization. As a hedge fund manager, you NEVER take a position without understanding where you are wrong. These people would NEVER be a trader because they clearly assume they will win and Russia and China would NEVER retaliate and just fall to their knees and beg for forgiveness and lick their shoes while they are there.
If hate crimes are to be enforced, they should drag these people out of office, lock them up in the hole, and throw away the key. They do not deserve the death penalty, for that is far too easy. People WRONGLY I think the death penalty is the worst. There are plenty of people in prison for life who would take that option if it was offered. These Neocons have weaseled their way into positions of power to manipulate the power of the United States for their personal vendettas. They are a threat to world peace and your future. People like Adam Kinzinger and Ben Hodges are very dangerous and will bring the United States to its destiny with the fall from the financial capital of the world.
This only lends credence to those telling Putin he should nuke Kiev and then ask the world is this where you want to go. They can do as the Americans did to Japan and drop leaflets, giving them a few days to get out of town. If they did what the Americans did and dropped these warnings, then they can argue they have done nothing different from the Americans. However, the argument is that then the people will see Russia is not bluffing, and they will round up these Neocons and lock them up where they belong.
Perhaps that is the only way to prevent a complete all-out nuclear war. The average person has to wake up and demand that their governments back off. Should we all destroy our future and that of our children and grandchildren all for the Donbas? Since the Ukrainians are denied a right to vote to remove Zelensky, they need to storm this palace to say their own country. Nearly 10 million have fled Ukraine, and Ukrainians are not allowed to decide their own fate, for that comes from Blinken in Washington.
They are pushing this nonsense that Putin is bluffing with his threats of nuclear escalation. NATO’s Secretary General, another sad representative of humanity, Jens Stoltenberg, has also dismissed the likelihood of Western aid to Ukraine leading to Russian retaliation. Personally, to save the world, NATO should be utterly destroyed. The Biden administration is controlled by Blinken and his other conflicted Neocons with lineages back to Ukraine who all profess their families were persecuted by Russians. They have usurped the power of the United States for personal gain, and there is NOBODY in Congress with the courage to save our nation.
Blinken makes the decisions, and the debate shows that Biden is not running the country. Blinken jas pushed the Biden Administration, allowing Ukraine to use US weapons to wage war inside Russia now directly —a red line the administration previously refused to cross. If I hire a hitman to tell him to kill someone, I cannot then claim innocence in court because he pulled the trigger.
Historically, let me make this perfectly clear to these people who are bringing the world to destruction. War has ALWAYS escalated when their red lines are crossed. The assumption that Putin is bluffing is self-serving is by people who just hate Russians. Historically, countries usually DO NOT bluff, and when they make such threats, they are eventually carried out. Indeed, if this morally corrupt individual ever studied history, they would discover multiple examples throughout history that show how this very proposition has led to death, destruction, and the disastrous fall of empires, nations, and city-states. Chinese general Sun Tzu has been revered for centuries for his wisdom in dealing with wars. These Neocons have waged endless wars since Vietnam under the pretense that they must defeat Russia. As Tzu warned: “There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.” Nearly 2/3rds of our national debt is because of war – not social benefits. Since we NEVER pay off our debt, we then pay interest forever on every war, and the veterans have to be provided healthcare for life for their service.
Putin is the ONLY wise man or adult in the room. Putin trusts Sun Tzu’s words: “Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.”This arrogance is filling the air and it is so obvious that the West will lose. Even Tzu said:
“He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.”
Even if we closely look at World War II, we can see how these Neocons learned nothing. Japan’s logic behind its attack on Pearl Harbor is an important example of miscalculating an adversary’s willingness to escalate. FDR was doing everything to entice Japan to war, just as the US and Europe were doing to Russia. The Japanese did not understand that FDR wanted Japan to attack because Congress kept rejecting a Declaration of War to enter Europe. The Japanese misunderstood that America would not retaliate as our Neocons seem to be suggesting with Russia today.
When Japan occupied French Indochina in 1941, America retaliated by freezing all Japanese assets in the states, just as they had done to Russia. FDR prevented Japan from purchasing oil. Having lost 94% of its oil supply and unwilling to submit to U.S. demands, Japan planned to take the oil needed by force. However, striking south into British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies would almost certainly provoke an armed U.S. response. To blunt that response, Japan decided to attack the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, hoping that the U.S. would negotiate peace.
The attack at Pearl Harbor was a huge gamble that obviously was wrong for Japan. FDR used Pearl Harbor to justify getting into World War II both in Europe and the Pacific. Instead of reverting to isolationism as Japan miscalculated, the U.S. geared up for total war, and Japan’s fate was sealed. This was FDR’s plan all along. The U.S. had already broken the Japanese code and knew in advance when Pearl Harbor would take place.
At the time, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (1884-1943) was the architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor. He wrongly assumed that by attacking Pearl Harbor, the Americans would back off and stop meddling in the Pacific. Ultimately, the Japanese military thought such an attack would shock the United States into a negotiated settlement. Obviously, Yamamoto did not know his enemy. As Sun Tzu said;
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Kinzinger is clearly making the same mistake as Yamamoto. The Russian people do NOT see Putin as a tyrant – it is America who they see as hating the Russian people. They love to claim Putin arrests opponents, yet the Biden Administration not only charged Trump in multiple cases, they have gone after all his supporters and even charged 1400 people for January 6th when state capitols have been stormed over issues like abortion, but nobody charges them.
The Korean War is yet another striking example of this arrogance and misjudgment of an enemy. In 1950, General Douglas MacArthur, the leader of the United Nations Command, pushed American-led forces up the Korean peninsula against the North Korean military. Max Hastings, the military historian, wrote in his book The Korean War how MacArthur insisted on using American forces to achieve a complete victory against the North Koreans. He thought he could drive the troops up the Korean peninsula to the Yalu River, the border with China. However, Chinese officials made it clear to American and UN officials that they should not push their forces past the river. American intelligence reports also showed that PLA military forces were mobilizing in the regions adjacent to the Yalu River. Still, MacArthur insisted that the Chinese would not enter this war. MacArthur’s assessment also proved completely wrong as the Chinese troops began pouring into Korea in October 1950, marking one of the turning points in the Korean War. Yet here we have Adam Kinzinger reassuring the world that they can do as they like and Putin will never respond, for he is just bluffing.
Even if we look closely at Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s decision to send nuclear missiles to Cuba in 1962, once again, he failed to judge America for making the classic mistake our Neocons are doing today with Russia. On September 13, 1962, President Kennedy warned Khrushchev against turning Cuba into a Soviet base.
“If at any time the Communist build-up in Cuba were to endanger or interfere with our security in any way . . . or if Cuba should ever . . . become an offensive military base of significant capacity for the Soviet Union, then this country will do whatever must be done to protect its own security and that of its allies.”
However, Khrushchev called Kennedy’s “bluff” and decided to send medium-range nuclear missiles to Cuba. He thought Kennedy was a weak leader and believed that his administration would NEVER do anything to counter this maneuver, fearing nuclear war. Kinzinger is advocating the very same assumptions of Khrushchev that the United States under the Kennedy administration, which was anti-war, was bluffing. What followed from Khruschev’s misjudgment led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the world was on the edge of nuclear war over a thirteen-day period. Khruschev tested Kennedy’s resolve, and clear thinking returned. Then, the two met face to face.
The Roman god Janus was the god of the beginning and ending of conflict, hence war and peace. In ancient Rome, the Temple of Janus stood in the Roman Forum with doors on both ends. Inside was a statue of Janus, who is always represented as the two-faced god. The doors of his temple were open in times of war and closed to mark peace. During a war, the Romans understood that things could change politically during the war. During peace, everything was stable. Janus (Ianuarius) is depicted as having two faces because he simultaneously looks to the future and the past. So, when we celebrate New Year’s Eve, and we say goodbye to the past and hello to the future, which is a concept stemming from Janus. This ancient concept illustrated the stark difference between war and peace. During the war, you NEVER know when they will end, and you certainly are not guaranteed the outcome.
Our Neocons and the press are cheering war and are telling everyone that Putin is bluffing just, and MacArthur misread the Chinese, and the Japanese, and Kruschev both misjudged America. They have thrown caution to the win and ASSUME that they will be victorious. History warns that both sides believe they will be victorious, but in the end, only one is. This is not a roulette table where we put it all in red or black and presume we will win. They are playing with the lives of so many people, all for their personal hatreds.
Posted originally on Jun 29, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
Smith and Garland are trying to indict Trump on Drug Charges, alleging he drugged Biden to win the Debate. They are desperately trying to find a statue they can twist to fit the crime.
Posted originally on the CTH on June 26, 2024 | Sundance
Tucker Carlson visits Australia this week and speaks to an audience in Canberra. Mr Carlson discusses Julian Assange’s release from prison in London. Tucker also took questions from an adversarial Australian press corps that is just as rabidly leftist as the U.S. media. WATCH:
Posted originally on Jun 27, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Looking at the United States from Europe, what has been done to Trump seems political. Do you think Trump will be vindicated by the Supreme Court?
SK
ANSWER: I have often stated that New York City is a cesspool of corruption. The conviction of Trump and even the gag order imposed by this outrageous prosecutor pretend to be an “acting judge” who should be not just disbarred but should be thrown in prison for treason going against everything the Constitution stood for. He is not just a disgrace to the legal profession but to an American citizen. The outrageous Judge Juan Merchan is restricting Trump’s Free Speech and still interfering in everyone’s right to a fair election. He has lifted the Gag Order ahead of the debate but only concerning the witnesses against him. He has maintained the gag order against the Court, prosecutor, and the jurors.
The case is over. There is absolutely NO CONSTITUTIONAL authority for such a restriction on his free speech. In Florida, this questionable special prosecutor has also sought a gag order to prevent Trump from speaking about that case in the debate. This is NOT the America I grew up in, and it has shown the entire world that the American Justice system is disgusting, corrupt, and just as Thrasymachus warned more than 2,000 years ago – JUSTICE is always just the self-interest of those in power. I am so glad I did not become a lawyer, for I hate hypocrisy, and they would have summarily executed me long ago.
The Supreme Court has just handed down two fundamental decisions, Gonzalez v. Trevino and Erlinger v. United States, that CONFIRM that Trump’s conviction on these 34 counts should be thrown out. If the NY Court of Appeals refuses to do so, New York should be expelled as part of the United States and thrown out for good.
This guilty verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election is so outrageous that if it were brought against Biden, I would say the same thing. I would love to see this fake judge put Trump in jail. The sentencing will be determined on July 11 by Judge Juan Merchan, just days before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee from July 15-18, where he’s expected to accept the party’s nomination.
This is clearly election interference. Our model has been targeting a Panic Cycle during the week of the Republic Convention. While we see that wee as turning points in Europe, it does not appear to reflect a Panic Cycle, implying that this may be related more to domestic issues rather than international ones. I would love to see Judge Juan Merchan either imprison Trump or impose probation that interferes with his ability to campaign and travel throughout the nation. Often, probation restricts the freedom to travel.
New York City is a vile place and truly a cesspool of legal corruption. When I asked a New York lawyer why no banker has EVER been charged for blowing up the economy with the manipulations, he replied: “You don’t shit where you eat! Trump’s case has shown the world WHY you should not do business in New York City – EVER!!!!! Manhattan has become a legal cesspool where prosecutors routinely use the legal system to hunt down famous people for personal notoriety and attack political rivals to undermine your opponent.
Kara McGee was dismissed as a juror. She explained the questions she was asked to qualify as a juror. She explained that one of the questions they asked was: “Do you have opinions about the ability for a former sitting president to be tried in a court of law? I think the way people answered showed how they felt about the case,” she said. “The other one was: Do you have any opinions about legal limits for campaign finance donation amounts? Which I believe was another one that was kinda meant to gauge feelings about the particular case.”
This judge effectively ensured the jury would find Trump guilty and failed to instruct them that the jury has the ULTIMATE power to decide if the law is even Constitutionally valid. In 1735, a New York jury acquitted publisher John Peter Zenger of seditious libel in what the National Constitution Center correctly calls ” an early example of jury nullification .” Judge Juan Merchan falsely instructed that the jury lacked that power, thereby rendering its guilty verdict constitutionally invalid. Juries have always had the power to acquit against the claimed evidence, and instructing them otherwise violates both the Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
The jury instructions given by Acting Judge Merchan told the jurors that “if the People satisfy their burden of proof, you must find the defendant guilty.” This language is plainly unconstitutional and a violation of every principle behind the purpose of the jury. Compare this to the jury instructions in the Hunter Biden prosecution, where the judge told the jurors they “should” convict if the state carried its burden, not that they MUST. This illustrates how corrupt New York City really is and WHY you should not even have an account with anyone in New York City – there is no justice for all.
The most famous trial where a jury stood up refusing to find the defendant guilty in the face of a corrupt government was that of William Penn (1644-1718), the founder of Pennsylvania. Penn was the leader of the Quakers in London, and you can see why people fled to America, just as people I know who fled Eastern European communism and came to America remark how the United States is doing the very same thing to people that they fled from.
At this point, the judge became so enraged, as I would expect from Judge Juan Merchan, and sent the jury back to reconsider their verdict. When they returned with the same verdict, the court criticized the jury’s leader, Bushnell, and demanded “a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco…We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it.”
After that, the jury was sent back three more times but returned with the same verdict. Finally, the jury refused to reconsider. The judge then fined each jury member forty marks and ordered them imprisoned until the fine was paid. Penn and Mead went to prison anyway, held in contempt for obeying the bailiff’s order that they put on their hats.
Also, look closely at the outrageous UNAMERICAN jury instruction given by Judge Juan Merchan, which allowed for a nonunanimous decision on the secondary crime that transformed a misdemeanor into a felony. The first thing you learn about criminal law is that a jury MUST find you guilty unanimously beyond a shadow of a doubt. This pretend prosecutor, who is only an acting judge, has rejected the very basic foundation of criminal law to ensure that Trump would be found guilty. If you answer such a question in law school as this judge did, you would NEVER graduate.
These two decisions, just rendered by the Supreme Court, further demonstrate that this Acting Judge is a total disgrace to the rule of law and should be disbarred.
Gonzalez v. Trevino
In Gonzalez v. Trevino, Sylvia Gonzalez was a city council member in Texas who claimed that her 2019 arrest on charges that she tampered with government records was in retaliation for her criticism of the city manager. The Supreme Court’s ruling granted Gonzalez another opportunity to pursue her retaliation claim in a lower court, stating that the lower court had an “overly cramped view” of a key precedent case. The criminal charges against Gonzales were thrown out before trial, unlike what this judge should have done in the Trump case.
This is Selective Prosecution, which Trump has argued and was summarily dismissed, even though no case like Bragg’s appears to have ever been brought before, which is the cornerstone of this argument. To establish Selective Prosecution requires a prosecution of only one defendant when there are others who are similarly situated, but are not facing prosecution. It is like driving 80 miles an hour in traffic, but you have a Ferrari, so the cop targets only you when everyone else is doing the same speed. This violated the Equal Protection Clause.
For example, in Wayte v US, 470 US 598, 608 (1985) and US v Steele 461 F2 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir 1972), a defendant was selectively prosecuted for exercising 1st Amendment rights in opposition to the census, and the government failed to justify its selectivity. Trump was selectively prosecuted without question.
Erlinger v. United States
In Erlinger v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments required a unanimous jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions. This case dealt with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon with prior burglaries. The court held that a jury MUST decide this issue unanimously under a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Under New York law, a jury must be unanimous on the existence of each and every element of the crime but not on every detail of how the crime was committed. This is dancing between the raindrops.
Now look at Acting Judge Merchan’s handling of the Trump case, where the jurors could disagree on key aspects of the crime yet still convict the defendant. Merchan’s jury instructions informed the jury that they needed to unanimously find Trump guilty of each of the 34 felony counts but did NOT need to be unanimous on the specific ways the law was allegedly broken. This meant the jurors did not need to unanimously agree that there was a crime and just declare that some secondary crime was involved.
These two decisions alone in Gonzales and Erlinger demonstrate that this Acting Judge violated the basic tenets of criminal law and the Constitution. This Erlinger case made it absolutely clear that for more serious punishment based on a prior crime of violence, a jury and not a judge should make that finding because a jury must find unanimously each and every element of an offense. Merchan permitted a non-unanimous finding in which the means were unlawful under 17-152, but that the jury find elements unanimously but need not be unanimous in findings of manners and means. This is a grey area.
I seriously doubt that Trump will be successful in appealing anything in the New York legal system. Constitutionally, I still believe that the verdict should eventually overturned. What was done to Trump is an INTERNATIONAL WARNING that the courts in New York are NEVER to be trusted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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