Tag Archives: Selling of influence

Jun 25 2020

Political Corruption at Trump Rally


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Jun 25, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

 By the way. BOK

stands for Bank of Oklahoma.

Here is how a corrupt convention center management team kills attendance at a Trump Rally. I was there and saw most of it first hand, followed by others tonight that never got past the temperature screeners.

1. BOK Center holds at least 19,000. The area outside the convention center set up by the Secret Service and Tulsa PD had a U-shaped squeeze shoot to funnel the crowd down to an area about. 50 feet wide and 600 feet long with an outdoor stage adjacent to the BOK entrance.Trump was supposed to be able to speak to the overflow group from this stage.

2. Entry to the “Secure Area” NOT the BOK center was about 5 blocks away where you had to pass “screeners” who took your temperature, made you put on a face mask and gave you a green band to proceed to Secret Service Security.

3. If the temperature screeners left their post- the entire entry to the BOK Trump rally was shut down.

4. And that is EXACTLY what happened today about an hour after we got through security.

5. The BOK center just before the doors opened had block off every other seat in the arena so the arena could only hold about 9500 people.

6. After continued back and forth with the trump campaign, something happened to allow more people in (in groups of just 100 at a time). We had to wait about 30 minutes each time for them to let just 100 of us trickle into the building. I am not talking about their security- we had already passed through metal detectors and everything. You could actually run into the building each time they would let just 100 of us in at a time, but that was just just wrong and corrupt on BOK management’s part. They removed the stickers/rule on every other seat – that is true, but only after they shut down all entry to the “event location”.

7. I looked over at the screening area and told my wife- something fishy is gong on- 2 hours before the rally – the screeners have left. I told her- no one can get to the stage/overflow area or the BOK center with the “temperature screeners” gone. It is like the people that collect tickets say- I am done we are leaving.

8. They left their posts and from what I am learning- thousands could not get in to the first checkpoint because the temperature screeners had to put green wrist band on you to gain access to the Secret Service security checkpoint. No green band— no entry to the security check point.

9. I think the BOK management told the screeners – we have reached the capacity for what we are letting into the BOK center, so shut down- do not allow the other Trump supporters to get a temperature check and no more green wrist bands. Do not issue green wrist bands so they can get into the holding area to see the stage for the outdoor Trump Rally.

10. It was all a setup to make it look like the crowds did not show up. The crowds DID show up and after 5pm,- 2 hours before the event- no one was there to let them get to security.

11. With only about 3/4 of the building full, and no overflow crowd-then. CNN boasts that the rally was a flop. The only thing that was a flop was BOK temperature screeners turned away thousands of attendees that never got to be near the rally.

This is pure political corruption at it’s finest. I was there- the super high energy crowd was there. they need to fire the BOK manager that oversaw this disaster. President Trump- we as the crowed tried, but with corrupt BOK management your crowd was downsized. We need a re-do without a crooked BOK building manager. On top of all that, even Uber was not accepting payments for any rides to the downtown area for the event. I hope this backfires on all the crooks.

Jun 25 2020

The Polls Being Manipulated?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Jun 24, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

 

We may be witnessing the manipulation of polls once again that show Biden way ahead of Trump as we did in 2016 in the USA and with BREXIT. This time it seems that the manipulation is taking place on Steriods.

According to our models, the support for Republicans looking at the House & Senate combined lies at 40% and resistance at 52% with 2017 coming in at 54.7%. The Democrats have resistance at 58% and support at 47% with 2017 coming in at 44.8%.

The Bullish Reversal stands at 58% for the Democrats and 53% for the Republicans. If the Democrats come in under 44.8% for the combined House & Senate, they will cascade downward into 2027 and split into two parties – left v middle.

Jun 20 2020

Attorney General Bill Barr Removes SDNY Attorney Geoffrey Berman – UPDATE: Berman Refuses to Leave…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on June 20, 2020 by 

Officially it’s being called a “resignation” according to the Associated Press.  However, all the right Lawfare “beach friends” are going bananas as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, is being replaced.  [DOJ Announcement Here]

According to the DOJ release Berman is being replaced by the nomination of Jay Clayton, currently the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Additionally, “Craig Carpenito, currently the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, will serve as the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, while the Senate is considering Jay Clayton’s nomination.”

(Via AP) […] Geoffrey S. Berman is stepping down as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Attorney General William Barr said in a statement. The office is one of the nation’s premiere districts, trying major mob cases and terror cases over the years.

It was unclear why Berman was leaving his position after serving more than two years. The announcement was made late Friday and came after Barr visited New York City to meet with local police officials. And Trump is nominating the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission to the job, a lawyer with virutally no experience as a federal prosecutor. (link)

UPDATE: USAO Geoffrey Berman is refusing to leave:

Well, there we have it.  That explains things; Jeffrey Berman is a member of the Lawfare resistance, a “beach friend” per se…

It’s worth keeping in mind that Berman’s office was the lead in several high profile cases assembled by Robert Mueller.  Additionally, AG Barr brought in five+ outside U.S. attorney’s to review all of the Mueller cases as an outcome of the FISA court order to conduct a sequestration review of any/all evidence that might have been used as an outcome of the fraudulently obtained Carter Page FISA warrant.

As CTH noted at the time…. “If you consider that several DOJ offices may be involved with the material under review, including the Southern District of New York; The Eastern District of New York; The Eastern District of Virginia; The Washington DC District, and even Main Justice itself; it makes sense that outside DOJ personnel would be needed for this review.”

There’s no evidence the moves are connected to the sequestration review, but with USAO John Durham looking deeply into the background of DOJ and FBI activity surrounding the effort to target candidate Trump, and later President Trump, there could be a possibility that several lanes are merging.   Obviously, AG Barr feels very confident to make the moves and subsequent recommendations to President Trump for replacements.

All of the exit moves and incoming replacements are coming to a head at the same time; early July. The current SDNY move is effective July 3rd, which is the same time that FBI chief legal counsel Dana Boente is leaving his position.  Both Boente (FBI) and Jeffrey Berman (DOJ-SDNY) appear to be resigning by Bill Barr’s request; essentially being told to leave.

Other activity this week that may hold deeper connection:

♦On Monday House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler announced that two former Special Counsel Robert Mueller attorneys, John W. Elias and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky  would be designated as “whistleblowers” to give testimony against AG Bill Barr. (LINK)

♦On Tuesday, the last remaining DOJ advisor to Jeff Sessions, Jody Hunt, announced his intent to leave the justice dept effective “early July”. (LINK) Mr. Hunt was Jeff Session’s chief-of-staff, and one of the key advisors responsible for the decision to recuse from the Mueller probe. (LINK)

♦On Wednesday the DOJ announced that Solicitor General Noel Francisco will be  departing: “Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco announces his departure from the Department of Justice, effective as of July 3, 2020.” (LINK)

♦And now on Friday Geoffrey Berman is removed and replaced at the SDNY office; and his exit is also timed for July 3rd. (LINK)

In addition to an identical exit time, one thing all of these departures have in common, including FBI legal counsel Dana Boente’s exit, is their connection to former AG Jeff Sessions (appointments) and DAG Rod Rosenstein (oversight); and ultimately each of these individuals is connected to the larger Robert Mueller special counsel activity.

Their previous work in the DOJ and FBI during the soft-coup insurance phase; which specifically involved the use of the special counsel appointment; in conjunction with the ongoing –and expanded– internal investigation by John Durham; which now includes seven or eight outside U.S. attorneys offices; just seems too coincidental.

The media are framing the use of outside attorneys as Bill Barr working on behalf of President Trump to undermine current and former prosecutions. However, understanding the January FISC order requiring the sequestration effort, the use of outsiders is absolutely necessary.  This is a big shield that AG Barr is likely keeping in his back pocket until after Nadler launches his impeachment attack.

The same U.S. Attorneys, prosecutors and FBI agents who used evidence gathered from the fraudulent FISA warrants cannot be the same attorneys, agents and prosecutors making decisions about what parts of the warrants were used to gather evidence and how each part of any case was assembled by the use therein. It is a simple matter of a conflict of interest carried by any prosecutor that used corrupt evidence.

The Robert Mueller team of FBI investigators and special counsel prosecutors certainly used the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants as part of their investigative evidence collection. Common sense would tell us this had to be the case or the FBI and Mueller team would not have requested July 2017 renewal of the FISA warrant two months after the special counsel team was assembled.

If the FBI & Special Counsel were not using the FISA warrant(s) to capture information, they would not have needed them renewed. Despite media spin to the contrary, the simple truth of renewals holding investigative value is evident in the renewal itself (ie. common sense).

Under this rather extensive effort to find exactly which investigations -over the course of three years- were touched directly, or indirectly, by the four FISA warrants; and/or which investigative paths may have been influenced downstream or enhanced -by varying degrees of importance- by evidence stemming from the FISA warrants; a reasonable person could see how AG Bill Barr would need to put a team together to retrace the investigative steps and make the sequestration determinations.

Overlay USAO John Durham doing a deeper and more lengthy investigation that touches the edges of the underlying warrant, and, well, that’s quite a lot of review ongoing.

Obviously, for reasons of biased intent, corporate left-wing media would like to ignore why outside prosecutors are needed under this framework. The media ignore in part because honest reporting would require an admission the FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained; and in part because the left-wing media have never informed the public of the DOJ/FBI sequestration effort in the first place. Likely well more than half the country has no idea the DOJ and FBI have been told to go find the material.

There have been numerous articles, thousands of words, and endless hours of pundit protestations about Bill Barr using outside DC lawyers to review all of the previous DOJ attorney activities; yet not a single time have they ever acknowledged the originating order from the FISA court requiring the DOJ/FBI to conduct the review.

Imagine that?

(Washington Post Link) […] Shortly after the McCabe announcement on Friday, officials said that Barr had assigned Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney in St. Louis, to review and “assist” prosecutors currently handling the case of Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who is still awaiting sentencing after having pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The Jensen appointment marks the latest iteration of an unusual trend inside the Justice Department of tasking outside U.S. attorneys with reviewing, managing, or reinvestigating work that would otherwise not be in their portfolio. Much of the effort seems aimed at re-examining the work of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, whose probe of possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign infuriated the president, or at targeting the president’s foes.  (read more)

Like I said, the Washington Post (above) and the New York Times (LINK) have both written pearl-clutching articles about Barr using DOJ “outsiders”; yet never once have they noted the FISA Court order that preceded all of these outside USAO’s entering the picture and receiving instructions from Bill Barr.  In order for media ideologues to continue advancing their political narrative they have to pretend not to know things…

…But Truth Has No Agenda!

Justice Department

✔@TheJusticeDept

Readout of Attorney General William P. Barr’s Visit with Boston and New York City Police Departments https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/readout-attorney-general-william-p-barr-s-visit-boston-and-new-york-city-police-departments …

Readout of Attorney General William P. Barr’s Visit with Boston and

justice.gov

862

Twitter Ads info and privacy
620 people are talking about this
Advertisem
Jun 19 2020

The DC Deep State (Hanging) Court


The Deep State Court

This cartoon has been inspired by Sara Carter’s superb article, “Powell Files Stunning Motion Against Gleeson: It’s A ‘wrap-up smear’ against Flynn,” in SaraCarter.com, 17 June 2020.

The entrapment and rail-roading of General Michael Flynn — and his subsequent betrayal by the law firm he hired to defend him, Covington & Burling LLP — are a microcosm of what the Deep State and a very corrupt legal system controlled by the Deep State does every day to most citizens. Indeed, the Holder Memorandum that took jail off the table for Wall Street financial criminals who are now known to have stolen $100 trillion from Main Street through a practice known as naked short selling (selling shares that do not exist, not delivering them, keeping the money), stands out as emblematic of what Matt Taibbi calls The Divide — one law for the rich, and one law for the poor. Covington & Burling’s partner Eric Holder let the rich off the hook at the same time that Covington & Burling threw Mike Flynn under the bus, charging him $3.5 million for stabbing him in the back.

The US Constitution draws a clear distinction between the roles of the executive and the judiciary, and Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who has in the past been praised by Sidney Powell in her book Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice, appears to have lost sight of both the Constitution and past Supreme Court decisions. His hiring of a retired judge who has multiple conflicts of interest, John Gleeson, deepens the legitimate criticism of what can best be called a judicial witch hunt devoid of evidentiary foundation.

As Carter describes the Powell brief, Gleeson is depicted as duplicitous (a liar) and as executing a “wrap-up smear” (defamation with malice).

The paragons of integrity here are the independent investigators shining a light on the egregious misconduct of FBI agents, and the production, finally, of 86 pages of newly produced exonerating materials discovered and proffered by the government in support of its long over-due motion to dismiss. Attorney General Bill Barr, and Deputy Solicitor General Noel Fran Francisco, are bastions of integrity in comparison to the severely impaired judges refusing to dismiss the case.

This cartoon has been sponsored by Robert David Steele

Jun 19 2020

The Big Con – The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society are Being Funded by Google?…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on June 18, 2020 by 

The Big Con.

What Senator Josh Hawley called the fraud of “the conservative bargain” is taking on an entirely new light thanks to the work of The National Pulse in what should be a game-changing expose’ on just who is funding, or should we say ‘controlling’, key aspects of expressed U.S. conservatism.

President Trump, in a tenuous alignment with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has previously said the list of judicial nominees presented, considered, nominated and confirmed, were assembled and vetted by two specific groups: The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation; both of whom claim to hold conservative outlooks.

As a result, it’s a little more than concerning to discover that both organizations are being funded by the ultra-left wing Google ideology.   Yes, the same Big Tech outlet currently working on an advanced directive to block, control, censor and eliminate conservative speech on-line, is financing the organizations who claim to support conservative speech.

That revelation should get some attention…. but it won’t… because the same conservative pundits who are in place to get the attention of conservative Americans, and ultimately control what outrages should garner the attention of conservative thinkers, are financial benefactors of the same organizations under the control of their left-wing financing.

Think about that carefully.

Let that sink in.

Things starting to make sense now?

The standing ovation at CPAC for Paul Ryan’s omnibus spending making sense now?

How many conservative pundits hang the shingle of their bona-fides based on their association with The Federalist Society, The Heritage Foundation, or  The CATO institute?

Do we really think those well known conservative voices, radio hosts, television pundits, booksellers and publication authors would now be part of an expose’ of admission?  Will the crowd of conservative voices stand jaw agape to discover their bank accounts are actually full of Google and Big Tech money?  Doubtful; it would be against their interests.

You can read the FULL LIST of which conservative groups are being funded by Google and Big Tech HERE.  And don’t skip the pearl-clutching justification from the Heritage Foundation at the bottom of the article.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

Senator Josh Hawley is right, the “Conservative Bargain” is based on a fraud…

But don’t worry, you won’t hear Mark Levin, Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham discuss it; unless, that is, their discussion includes the always popular controlled outrage approach.

When you consider the scale of left-wing Big Tech’s financial control, all of that stuff that we are told to keep us from tarring and feathering the Republican DC leadership, certainly seems like one big uniparty con job.

However, that said, the Supreme Court Judge Gorsuch decisions; and the Supreme Court Justice Roberts decisions take on a new light when you consider their nominations were advanced and confirmed in the best interests of silicon valley.  I digress…

…There are Trillions at Stake

.

Advertisements
Jun 19 2020

Supreme Court Blocks Termination of DACA Program – Justice John Roberts Makes Political Stand…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on June 18, 2020 by 

A supreme court ruling today has blocked the termination of a court-admitted unconstitutional executive action known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  The background of the DACA controversy, and the prior position of the court on the sister program DAPA, makes this ruling the most political ruling yet by Chief Justice John Roberts.  [pdf link to ruling here]

The court decision was a 5-4 ruling.  Justice Roberts sided with the four liberal justices in blocking the termination of the executive program.  What makes this ruling outrageous is within the majority opinion of the court they recognize the Trump administration has the legal and constitutional authority to terminate the program; but the court, specifically John Roberts, doesn’t like the way in which the administration might do it.

The crux of Justice Roberts’ opinion is openly political.  The majority admit there is no constitutional protection for DACA recipients, and the Trump administration has the authority to dissolve and reverse the protections under the previous executive action; however, Roberts specifically cites his concern with deportation.

Accepting the argument that benefits provided by DACA were illegal, Roberts observed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), via the DACA dissolution memo of Elaine Duke, could have still retained protection from deportation. Framing the argument of Justice Robert’s concern is that DHS concluded, without any explanation, protection from deportation terminates with the removal of DACA protections and benefits.

Additionally, Roberts added, former DHS Secretary Elaine Duke (2017) did not address whether DACA recipients had counted on the existence of the program in arranging their lives; if she had, he suggested, she “might have considered more accommodating termination dates” for DACA recipients who were in the middle of academic programs, military service or medical treatment.

The core of John Robert’s argument is that DACA recipients, the previously transported children of illegal aliens into the United States, would be subject to deportation if the DACA protections were terminated.

Judge Roberts, and all other justices, concede the executive action could be terminated or reversed because, well, after all it’s not a law; but their majority decision rests on their expressed desire to block deportation.  That’s the fulcrum of the Robert’s opinion.

That is not a legal position, that framework is entirely a political position.

The admission that President Trump has the authority to terminate DACA, and the simultaneous admission they don’t like what Trump might do after the termination, is why I say this is the most political decision to ever come out of the Supreme Court.

To make the issue even more unfathomable, we must remember when the sister program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Arrivals (DAPA) was terminated, Justice John Roberts was on the other side of the argument.  WHAT A CONTRAST.

After the death of Justice Scalia there were only eight justices on the supreme court.  In 2016 the court ruled 4-4 to allow the lower court ruling to stand that terminated the DAPA program (Judge Andrew Hanen).

In the 2016 ruling Justice Roberts supported the termination.   However, in 2020 with an almost identical fact pattern between DACA and DAPA for legal review, Justice Roberts flips his position and blocks the termination.  Yeah, that’s political – nothing more.

♦CONSEQUENCES – President Trump has openly said he was awaiting a ruling in favor of the termination of DACA so that congress would be forced to finally deal with the issue.  The core outlook for President Trump was to use the DACA issue to force resolution inside a much needed immigration bill.

Without a doubt this decision today must be very frustrating.

The ruling doesn’t stop the Trump administration from terminating DACA eventually; it only blocks them from using the 2017 DHS memorandum issued by DHS Secretary Elaine Duke.  Which again points the political nature of this particular decision.

The Trump administration can still use the June 2018 termination memorandum issued by DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen; which was written in support of the previous Duke memo and which the supreme court refused to consider in their review…. Because the SCOTUS wanted to punt the DACA problem to the November 2020 election.

Yes, that’s correct.  The concerns the Supreme Court had with the 2017 DACA termination, memo outlined by DHS secretary Elaine Duke, were reconciled by the 2018 DACA termination memo written by Kirstjen Nielsen…  That’s why SCOTUS refused to review it.

FUBAR.

Jun 17 2020

The Real Looters!


We’ve seen plenty of looting during the ‘peaceful protests,’ but the looters we saw on TV are amateurs compared to what’s going on at the top.

The Federal Reserve no longer consults Congress to create and distribute their debt currency. Not only has the Fed routinely bailed out its owners—the globalist central banks—it has also engaged in nonstop quantitative easing to prop up the stock market. Just this morning I saw the Dow was down over 700, but then for some reason it flew up to nearly 300 in the green. Was there fantastic news to trigger a nearly 1,000 point turnaround? No. It was the Federal Reserve at work. The market needed ‘liquidity’ just as a dry drunk needs more booze.

If the Federal Reserve is buying their own treasuries as well as bonds and stocks, who owns those financial instruments? Certainly not the poor or middle class. The top 1 percent benefits. They’ve actually grown fabulously richer due to the plannedemic. They control the system. They must not and cannot lose regardless of dire economic conditions. Small businesses are shut down, but global corporations such as Walmart remain open—fine and dandy. It’s business as usual—the screwing of the average man.

The Monopoly Men of the 1 percent own 50 percent of the stock market as well as over half the world’s wealth. The very top 1/10th of that 1 percent are billionaires such as George Soros and Bill Gates and they think their fantastic wealth gives them the right to usher in an Orwellian police state to monitor and control us all. Bill Gates’ COVID-19 vaccine isn’t about helping people. It’s part of their plan for a global ID system. Digital elements and perhaps a chip will become mandatory. Their plannedemic has been put in place to make this happen. It’s the ‘mark of the beast.’ Your very life depends on NOT taking Bill Gates’ vaccine.

After the 9-11 attacks, ‘Big Guv’ took away our rights under the excuse of ‘keeping us safe.’ We lost many of our Fourth Amendments rights and they will not return. They convinced us to exchange our freedom and privacy for safety and they made it sound like the patriotic thing to do, hence their ‘Patriot Act.’

The Federal Reserve has existed for 107 years and during that time they stole countless trillions of dollars in wealth from average Americans. Big government stole our freedom. The 1 percent, including the Rockefeller Foundation, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The Clinton Foundation, and now the Obama Foundation will make sure everything else gets stolen—including our very lives.

—Ben Garrison

Jun 14 2020

U.S. Embassy Seoul, Ambassador Harry Harris, Posts Banner In Support of Black Lives Matter….


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on June 13, 2020 by 

The U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea (ROK) is Harry Harris.  The U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea, has posted a banner on the building in support of Black Lives Matter.  [Source]

At first blush it might seem a little disconcerting for the U.S. Department of State to be advocating on issues of political divisiveness around the BLM agenda; however, the BLM banner has simply replaced the rainbow banner (support of the LGBTQ community).  In essence, the U.S. embassy in Korea is always advocating for social justice causes.

Ambassador Harry Harris likes to draw attention to himself and insert himself in the conversation whenever possible.  Well known as an effeminate ambassador, Harry Harris enjoys parading around while politically twerking his social justice bona-fides to the global community as a way to engage in his own brand of U.S. diplomacy.

The diplomatic cocktail corps; unique ASEAN members who enjoy white wine spritzers & luncheons of crust-less triangle sandwiches; like Harry Harris very much.  Moon Jae-In is the South Korean version of President Obama.  President Moon Jae-in loves Harry Harris.

Harry Harris

✔@USAmbROK

I disagree w/these protestors but respect their right to peacefully protest here in democratic ROK. Way cool-Americans & Koreans will rally VIRTUALLY on Saturday. USA will investigate fully & transparently George Floyd’s killing. Shared these thoughts w/Embassy Team last Tuesday.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

240

 · Jongno-gu, Republic of Korea
Twitter Ads info and privacy
134 people are talking about this

Harry Harris

✔@USAmbROK

 · 
U.S. Embassy Seoul

✔@USEmbassySeoul

The U.S. Embassy stands in solidarity with fellow Americans grieving and peacefully protesting to demand positive change. Our #BlackLivesMatter banner shows our support for the fight against racial injustice and police brutality as we strive to be a more inclusive & just society.

View image on Twitter

Harry Harris

✔@USAmbROK

When Dr. Benjamin Mays delivered Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s eulogy in 1968, he said Dr. King’s “unfinished work on earth must truly be our own.” Recent weeks remind us that MLK’s work remains unfinished. Friends, I believe that work falls on each of us today.

Twitter Ads info and privacy
Jun 12 2020

The Supreme Court is the Source of this Civil Unrest


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law

Re-Posted Jun 12, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Is the rioting and social injustice taking place not the failure of Barak Obama? Or is was his failure part of the cause of this? I am not trying to deflect from the police consistently getting away with murder, they should all be locked up for their crimes.
Maybe putting it all on Barak isn’t correct either but it seems odd to me that these types of murders caught on camera, go unpunished. How does this get solved?

P

 

ANSWER: The system is just so corrupt it is hard to see where to begin. We do not have a government of “We the People,” and such a system cannot exist without term limits. As soon as you have career politicians, they will NEVER side with the people. We are the great unwashed to be exploited and ruled. The two things I see are (1) term limits; 2 years and out, and (2) no person working for the government should EVER have any position of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court established Qualified Immunity in 1982 which is precisely the opposite of how they treat the people. If you violate a law you did not know in “good faith” that is not a defense. The courts hold it is your OBLIGATION to know every law they pass for hundreds of years that remain on the books. You cannot present a defense of acting in “good faith,” but those in government can do so against the people. This is morally wrong and totally unethical.

The Supreme Court claims that to do their job, government employees need to be shielded from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. Yet those in government can rape us, kills us, and torture us with absolute immunity. In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) the Supreme Court held:

Government officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suits for damages — including certain officials of the Executive Branch, such as prosecutors and similar officials, see Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, and the President, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, ante p. 457 U. S. 731 — are entitled to the defense of absolute immunity. However, executive officials in general are usually entitled to only qualified or good faith immunity. The recognition of a qualified immunity defense for high executives reflects an attempt to balance competing values: not only the importance of a damages remedy to protect the rights of citizens, but also the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232. Federal officials seeking absolute immunity from personal liability for unconstitutional conduct must bear the burden of showing that public policy requires an exemption of that scope. Pp. 457 U. S. 806-808.

There should be NO basis whatsoever for any such immunity, for the government is NOT the sovereign of the nation. The people are. The Supreme Court stated in LEGAL TENDER CASES, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) (also referred to as Julliard v Greenman), “There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld.”

The Supreme Cout held that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and binds every forum whether it derives its authority from a state or from the United States Cook v Moffat, 46 US 295 (1847). “It may be regarded as settled that the Constitution of the United States is the only source of power authorizing action by any branch of the Federal government.” Dorr v US, 195 US 138, 140 (1904).

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that grants any immunity to government officials against the people. NONE!!!! To create such immunity by the Supreme Court is contrary to the Constitution and since it lacks such a source of power, it is void. All protests should be directed at the Supreme Court. They have protected government contrary to the Constitution.

Jun 7 2020

The Bias of an Impartial Jury


Armstrong Economics Blog/Human Rights

Posted Jun 7, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. Who will help citizens to uphold this alleged right?

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Gary Val Richardson received a fair trial, despite the judge’s wife acting as a sitting member of the jury. Judge Thomas R. Ensor, now retired, jokingly told the other jurors to “be nice” to his wife, juror 25, as his “dinner was on the line.” Both the defense attorney and prosecutor felt that Mrs. Ensor was fit to sit on the jury, but Richardon’s lawyer later said, “I think we’re both afraid to challenge her.”

Despite the conflict of interest, the jury found Richardson guilty and sentenced him to 16 years behind bars. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld that ruling this week in a 6-1 vote as they believed Richardson’s lawyer waived any right to question juror 25 by not objecting during the jury selection.

Justice Richard Gabriel was the only member of the Colorado Supreme Court to question the ruling. “To me, the question is whether Richardson was denied a fair trial when the trial judge sat on a case in which his wife served as a juror and in which the judge told everyone in the courtroom to ‘be nice’ to his wife and then repeatedly reminded everyone of his relationship with her,” Gabriel observed.

The Sixth Amendment should have granted the defendant an impartial jury, but the definition of “impartial” can be manipulated based on the reviewer. The Constitution does not guarantee protection against otherwise basic human rights, further reiterating why the US has one of the highest conviction rates in the world.