Should Jack Smith be arrested for committing election interference against Trump?
Yes! Those are their rules. The same rules apply to them.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 19:13:42 -0800, Alan says...
On 2024-01-04 19:10, AlleyCat wrote:
Should Jack Smith be arrested for committing election interference against >>> Trump?
Yes! Those are their rules. The same rules apply to them.
Sorry, but following the evidence and testimony (almost all from
Republicans, BTW), getting an indictment from a grand jury and going to
trial is NOT in any way, shape, or form, "election interference".
Sorry... yes, it does, else Biden would be indicted too. Biden's broken the law
JUST as many times they say Trump has.
Need a list?
... else there'd be indictment after indictment after indictment for Joe Biden,
too.
Orrr, do you think Joe Biden is innocent of all accusations?
If you believe THAT, you're a fucking psycho, like Rudy.
Where there is smoke...
=====
Phone Calls: Cited was testimony from witnesses who told lawmakers Biden joined
on "multiple phone calls and had multiple interactions, dinners" with his son's
business partners, which the speaker alleged led to millions of dollars in payments and cars to Hunter Biden and his associates.
Hunter Biden's former business partner Devon Archer testified to the House Oversight Committee in July that he witnessed then-Vice President Biden and his
son have multiple "casual conversations" in the presence of Hunter's business partners, including on speakerphone, but Archer said they did not involve any business discussions.
The claims are similar to ones made in a 2020 New York Post story that claimed
Biden had contact with his son's Ukrainian business partners, though the president has repeatedly denied involvement in his family's business dealings,
a denial McCarthy said Biden "lied about."
=====
Payments to Family Members: Also referenced were bank records that Republican committee leaders claim show Hunter Biden and his business partners received $20 million in payments from various foreign entities, though they didn't present evidence that Joe Biden received any of the money, and only about $7 million went directly to Biden family members, according to a Washington Post analysis.
=====
Bank Records: In addition, cited was a Suspicious Activity Reports that detail
various foreign transactions Hunter Biden and his business partners engaged in-
banks are required to file these reports on a routine basis with the federal government to flag potential illegal activity, but they generally are not proof
of criminality on their own.
=====
Bribery: Referenced was a bribery allegation brought by an FBI source that alleges the CEO of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company Hunter Biden sat on the
board of, paid $10 million to members of the Biden family to help remove a Ukrainian corruption prosecutor.
The bribery claim has not been confirmed, and the allegation around Shokin's firing is fraught with factual deficiencies, however: Then-Vice President Joe Biden was among a coalition of U.S. and foreign leaders calling for Viktor Shokin's ouster because he didn't pursue corruption investigations fervently enough, including one into Burisma that was stalled at the time Shokin was forced to step down, a former Ukrainian official later told Bloomberg.
61%. That's the share of Americans who believe Biden meddled in his son's business dealings, according to a CNN/SSRS poll released last week. Nearly half, 42%, believe Biden's conduct was illegal, according to the poll of 1,503
adults (margin of error 3.5).
Should Jack Smith be arrested for committing election interference against >Trump?
Yes! Those are their rules. The same rules apply to them.
=====
Appeals Court Hints It May Consider Constitutional Questions About Jack Smith's
Appointment
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 21:10:15 -0600, AlleyCat <katt@gmail.com> wrote:
Should Jack Smith be arrested for committing election interference against >> Trump?
Yes! Those are their rules. The same rules apply to them.
=====
Appeals Court Hints It May Consider Constitutional Questions About Jack Smith's
Appointment
The Dems NEVER apply thier own rules.
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 11:08:54 -0800, Alan says...
Appeals Court Hints It May Consider Constitutional Questions About Jack Smith's
Appointment
The Dems NEVER apply their own rules.
What is the constitutional question in your own words.
In your words, what do YOU care, Canadian?
=====
THE D.C. COURT OF APPEALS suggested on Tuesday that it may consider the constitutionality of special counsel Jack Smith's appointment as well as other
issues, including the timing of former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity appeal.
The court issued an order on Tuesday, instructing parties to be ready to address "discrete issues" raised in amicus briefs during the oral arguments on
January 9, the Daily Caller reported. The upcoming arguments pertain to Trump's
attempt to dismiss his 2020 election case based on presidential immunity.
Some of the briefs challenge the constitutionality of Smith's appointment, while others argue that Trump should only raise the immunity challenge after a
conviction and trial, the outlet noted.
Edwin Meese III, a former U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, along with law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, submitted an amicus brief contending that there is no statute or constitutional provision that empowers the AG to appoint
"a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel."
"Not properly clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor," they wrote in their brief. "Illegally appointed, he has no more authority to represent THE UNITED STATES in this Court, or in the underlying prosecution, than Tom Brady, Warren Buffett, or Beyoncé."
Meanwhile, THE GROUP AMERICAN OVERSIGHT submitted a brief asserting that Trump's appeal for immunity is premature, arguing that, according to U.S. SUPREME COURT precedent, a criminal defendant cannot raise an immunity claim before conviction unless there is an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that a trial will not take place.
"The law is clear: Mr. Trump cannot appeal his immunity defenses until after he
is tried and convicted," Arnold & Porter partner Stanton Jones said in a statement. "He should not be allowed to use an improper appeal to delay the scheduled March trial."
The Daily Caller noted further that sixteen former government officials and constitutional experts, including former Associate Counsel to President George
W. Bush, Brad Berenson, and Olivia Troye, former HOMELAND SECURITY and Counterterrorism Special Advisor to Mike Pence, filed a brief arguing Trump's position "cannot be squared with the Constitution's text or history."
"The immunity he seeks would severely impair the ability of the current President, in whom all executive powers are vested, see U.S. Const. art. II, §
1, cl. 1, to take care that Congress's laws proscribing obstruction of federal
elections are faithfully executed," they wrote. "And by asking the Judicial Branch to fashion a sweeping atextual immunity from whole cloth, he draws the Judiciary and the Executive into conflict."
Last week, the U.S. SUPREME COURT rejected Smith's appeal to hear Trump's immunity claim before it is heard by the appeals court. Also, the federal judge
overseeing his Jan. 6 'election interference' case, Tanya Chutkan, rejected Trump's request to throw out his case on the same claim in a Dec. 1 ruling.
But Chutkan has paused Trump's trial, originally scheduled to begin March 4, ruling, in part, that her order "automatically stays any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant."
The Hill reported: "Trump last week appealed an order from Chutkan that rejected his motion to dismiss the Jan. 6 case, likewise asking that she halt activity in the case while his appeal proceeds. The move comes as Trump has argued the courts should dismiss the case both on the concept of presidential immunity, as well as on constitutional grounds, including the First Amendment."
"If jurisdiction is returned to this court, it will-consistent with its duty to
ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties-consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024," wrote Chutkan in
her order.
============================================================================
Holier-than-thou LIBERAL Canadians, think they're soooo superior when it comes
to slavery, because they "ended" it (not really) a mere 30 years earlier.
Canada "ended" slavery a mere 30 years before Lincoln wrote the "Emancipation Proclamation".
HOW does that make Canada ANY "better" or different? It doesn't.
Canada's Shameful, Modern-Day Slave Trade https://torontosun.com/2012/02/10/canadas-shameful-modern-day-slave- trade/wcm/2e410af6-9dc4-4ef7-bc3e-821a5970ed41
Colonial Canada Had Slavery For More Than 200 Years. And Yes, It Still Matters
Today
More Canadians Say Racism Is A "Serious Problem" Today Than 1 Year Ago
Canada Urged To Open Its Eyes To Systemic Racism In Wake Of Police Violence
Racism In Canada Is Ever-Present, But We Have A Long History Of Denial
Majority (60%) See Racism as a Serious Problem in Canada Today, Up 13 points Since Last Year
Nearly a Third of Canadians (28%) Say They Have Personally Experienced Racism in the Past Year - 24 July 2020 https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/majority-60-see-racism-serious-problem-canada- today-13-points-last-year
Canada's Enduring Legacy Of Power, Politics And Racism https://theclarion.ca/politicslaw/canadians-no-less-racist-than-americans/
75 Per Cent of Canadians Polled, Say Royal Canadian Mounted Police Has Systemic
Racism Issue
Systemic Racism In The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/07/11/study-canadians-agree-rcmp-systemic- racism/
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 110:31:38 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,827 |