Donald Trump arrested and charged

[Huckleberry]

Iran’s Top Attorney Indicts Trump for Murder in Criminal Court of Tehran

In a story that has been widely reported in the Middle Eastern media since yesterday, June 23, 2024, Ali Alghasi-Mehr, the judiciary chief for Tehran province, has issued a 164-page indictment against 73 American officials regarding the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani and his companions back in 2020.

The chief Iranian prosecutor stated that a public trial will be held next month, and that: “All the defendants, who are U.S. statesmen and military officials, have been officially notified of the case and required to introduce their lawyers.”

Only two of the 73 American officials have been revealed so far (that I could find), and that is former U.S. President Donald Trump, who ordered Soleimani’s death, and Trump’s former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

https://healthimpactnews.com/2024/ir...urt-of-tehran/

[norman]

Meet Alina Habba - President Trump's official legal spokesperson

"We're going to be OK"

https://rumble.com/v53tobl-meet-alin...kesperson.html



Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v51hflo/?pub=1yatds

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/catturd2/status/1807742907765457230

[mountain_jim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ficial-actions

Supreme Court Rules Trump Immune From Criminal Charges For Official Actions

BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, JUL 01, 2024 - 10:33 AM
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in a 6-3 vote that former presidents, including Trump, enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct involving official acts during tenure in office, but he's not immune from unofficial acts.



As Bloomberg notes, the decision 'all but ensures' that a trial won't happen in Trump's classified documents case before the November election.

The justices, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, said a federal appeals court was too categorical in rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, ruling for the first time that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for some official acts taken while in office. The majority ordered the lower courts to revisit the case to decide the extent of the allegations that are off limits to prosecution.

"Just as former presidents have immunity from civil liability for official acts, they have immunity from criminal prosecution unless they are impeached and removed from office for the crime alleged. This decision is supported by the writings of the framers of the Constitution, the text of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent," wrote X user Martin Harry.



Download this PDF






< more at link >

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1807796068509233528

Wall Street Silver
@WallStreetSilv
The way this Supreme Court decision is written, it will be impossible to convict a President for anything they say or tweet.

The Supreme Court is basically saying that speaking publicly on issues is an "official act".

It is the job of the US President to have opinions on issues and speak about them. He can't be prosecuted later just because the other side disagrees with those opinions or positions.



https://x.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1807786849265443018

Wall Street Silver
@WallStreetSilv
Due to the Supreme Court ruling granting Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office:

The Jan 6th criminal case in Washington DC against Trump just was crushed.

The criminal case in Georgia against Trump will likely also be dismissed.


https://x.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1807823375211041255

[mountain_jim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ficial-actions

Trump Says Immunity Ruling 'Big Win For Democracy'

BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, JUL 01, 2024 - 10:33 AM
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in a 6-3 vote that former presidents, including Trump, enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct involving official acts during tenure in office, but he's not immune from unofficial acts.

As Bloomberg notes, the decision - which kicks the ball back to the lower court - 'all but ensures' that a trial won't happen in Trump's classified documents case before the November election.

The justices, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, said a federal appeals court was too categorical in rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, ruling for the first time that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for some official acts taken while in office. The majority ordered the lower courts to revisit the case to decide the extent of the allegations that are off limits to prosecution.

"Just as former presidents have immunity from civil liability for official acts, they have immunity from criminal prosecution unless they are impeached and removed from office for the crime alleged. This decision is supported by the writings of the framers of the Constitution, the text of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent," wrote X user Martin Harry.

As constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley notes, now "the issue is whether what constitutes official acts," adding that the ruling will "further delay the lower court proceedings, but Trump will have to argue that his actions fall within these navigational beacons."

"The lower court judge has been highly favorable for Jack Smith in the past. Yet the court is arguing that there is a presumption of immunity for their official acts beyond the absolute immunity on core constitutional powers."


Sean Davis
@seanmdav
KEY PARAGRAPH: "Taking into account these competing considerations, the Court concludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the Court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'"



< more and many X posts at link - including below >



https://x.com/bhweingarten/status/1807790096436834476

Benjamin Weingarten
@bhweingarten
Justice Thomas' concurrence in Trump v. U.S. is hugely significant. He questions whether Special Counsel Jack Smith's office is constitutional.

"If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President."


Benjamin Weingarten
@bhweingarten
Justice Thomas launches a legal missile at AG Merrick Garland:

"It is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office 'established by Law,' as required by the Constitution"

"...None of the statutes cited by the Attorney General appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose"

"...Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause"



Benjamin Weingarten
@bhweingarten
Justice Thomas: "In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President 'is not above the law.' But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law...

Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed. We must respect the Constitution’s separation of powers in all its forms, else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee."

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/WarClandestine/status/1807813100520755306

Clandestine
@WarClandestine
The Libs have gone completely off the wagon, and are now demanding that Biden use “Presidential immunity” to drone strike the SC/Trump, cancel the election, etc.

It’s adorable how quickly they resort to fascism when they lose.

Maintain this energy Libs. Your day is coming.



https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807822233563193493

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807826558578504185

https://x.com/TheWakeninq/status/1807840465519366591

https://x.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1807830882121568544

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/seanmdav/status/1807841899765514740

Sean Davis
@seanmdav
SCOTUS: You can’t just throw your rival in prison because you don’t like him.

DEMOCRATS: So you’re saying we can drop bombs on him?

SCOTUS: You really can’t even charge your rival with a crime because his presidency made you mad.

DEMOCRATS: Got it. So we can incinerate his house with him in it?

SCOTUS: The Constitution protects officials from being terrorized with lawfare for official actions they undertook while in office.

DEMOCRATS: Ah. Makes sense. So we can officially assassinate everyone we don’t like?

SCOTUS: Prosecuting a politician because you don’t like his politics would destroy our country, and we’re not going to allow it.

DEMOCRATS: Roger that. So what you’re saying is: we are officially allowed to eliminate Trump and the Supreme Court as long as we, like, say it’s official and stuff?


https://x.com/catturd2/status/1807849210076606822

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/JeffClarkUS/status/1807971929774579771

Jeff Clark
@JeffClarkUS
The Left’s meltdown over the immunity decision today is glorious.

But let’s for the sake of argument indulge their wild, overdrawn hypotheticals.

Who’s responsible for the Supreme Court having to tease out the logic that always has been pregnant in the structure of the Constitution that makes clearer than it has ever been before that the full span of presidential power is frightening to behold?

It’s not Donald Trump.

They could have just let him enjoy his post-presidency period and then just geared up for a 2024 rematch to be decided by the voters.

They could — in a word— have exercised restraint. They didn’t need to pose questions they now wish had been left unanswered.

But no, they had to try to establish their absolute dominance by weaponizing DOJ, as well as Blue States, localities, and bars to run their opponents into the ground using lawfare.

They took off the governing valves of prudence circumscribing the Republic and now they are reaping the whirlwind they put into motion.

In sum, they don’t like the constitutional answers to the very questions they themselves posed. But it is their conduct that required the answers be given.



https://x.com/catturd2/status/1808095264299012346

🇺🇸 RACHEL MADDOW: TRUMP'S IMMUNITY IS A DEATH SQUAD RULING

“Donald Trump and his counsel asked for this 100 percent absolute immunity thing, which was insane.

The practical impact of what they have done is to give Trump immunity that even he and his counsel did not ask for.

This is a death squad ruling, a ruling that says that as long as you can construe it as an official or quasi-official act, you can do absolutely anything.

This explicitly immunizes and justifies anything the president wants to do to anyone.”

Source: MSNBC

[mountain_jim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...unity-decision


Democrats Hint At Assassination In Response To Supreme Court Immunity Decision

BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, JUL 01, 2024 - 10:00 PM
Nobody likes to lose but leftists take indignant defeat to a whole new level. Though they claim to "defend democracy" in their spare time, Democrats also have a tendency to abandon the democratic process when that process interferes with their intentions to remain in power.

Case in point: The Supreme Court's recent decision to give immunity from prosecution to Donald Trump in the case of "some official acts" taken during his tenure in office. Leftists have responded with outrage at the 6-3 decision with much of their political hopes resting on the strategy of burying Trump in as many legal battles as possible to keep him from running for president again. Democrats are now flooding social media and the news feeds with suggestions that the SC decision makes it possible for Joe Biden as president to eliminate the conservative competition "as a part of his official duties."

The tools for legally punishing presidents already exist, including impeachment and charges of treason. And, keep in mind, if Trump does not have immunity for previous actions as president, then neither does any other president. How many skeletons are in the closets of men like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama?

Beyond this, assassination of a political opponent or the conservative members of the Supreme Court is not recognized as an official duty of the presidency. Democrats, as usual, take their conclusions to the dramatic extreme in order to provoke public fear through emotionally energized disinformation. Leftists have been fantasizing publicly about murdering Trump for some time now. However, these "theories" on how Biden could respond to the Supreme Court are not simple hypotheticals for the sake of argument, there is an element of desperation and bloodlust.

What they are really upset about is the fact that Trump is free and clear to finish his election race against a mentally deficient Joe Biden. They're also terrified that Trump might return the favor and seek revenge if he goes back to the Oval Office.

Three out of the four criminal cases brought against Trump last year will now become irrelevant, likely preventing a trial in the federal election subversion case before November. The fourth case, the hush money trial which led to his conviction this year, is considered the weakest of the efforts because it sought to turn misdemeanor charges into felony charges using an obscure statute.

It should be noted that Presidents already have immunity from civil liability while in office and must be impeached for a violation before lawsuits can proceed. The Supreme Court has simply extended that immunity to cover criminal prosecution.

Regardless of how you might feel about Donald Trump it's clear that Democrats have been engaging in a strategy of "lawfare" - The weaponization of the courts as a means to destroy a political opponent instead of facing him head-on in the election arena. The majority of charges made against Trump have been farcical at best, with little to no evidence to support the commission of an actual crime.

The SC is likely responding to this lawfare by limiting it to criminal cases outside of presidential acts, of which there are none. Otherwise, the chicanery on the part of Democrats would cripple the presidency for years to come and every party and president from now on would have to engage in the same lawfare in order to compete

< more at link >

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1808155893223047618

Laura Loomer
@LauraLoomer
BREAKING:

President Trump’s July 11th Sentencing has been delayed following a request by President Trump’s legal team to move the date.

No new sentencing date has been set, but the earliest it could be is the final week of July.

Another W for Trump!

Laura Loomer
@LauraLoomer
·
2h
This means President Trump will be at the RNC Convention, which is taking place from July 15-18th in Milwaukee.


update

https://x.com/catturd2/status/1808216118542156069

Insider Paper
@TheInsiderPaper
BREAKING: Donald Trump's sentencing has been postponed until September 18 in the wake of the Supreme Court immunity ruling.

[mountain_jim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...its-presidency

No, President Biden, The Supreme Court Did Not Remove Any Limits On The Presidency

BY TYLER DURDEN
TUESDAY, JUL 02, 2024 - 02:40 PM
Authored by Jonathan Turley,

President Joe Biden delivered an address from the White House last night on the presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court. While pledging that he will defend the rule of law, President Biden misrepresented what that law is in the aftermath of Trump v. United States.



While we have often discussed false constitutional claims by the President as well as other false statements, an address of this kind is particularly concerning in misleading citizens on the meaning of one of the most important decisions in history.

As I have previously written, I am not someone who has favored expansive presidential powers. As a Madisonian scholar, I favor Congress in most disputes with presidents. However, I saw good-faith arguments on both sides of this case and the Court adopted a middle road on immunity — rejecting the extreme positions of both the Trump team and the lower court.

One of the most glaring moments in the address came when President Biden declared that “for all…for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.”

That is not true.

The Court found that there was absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions.

The Court has often adopted tiered approaches in balancing the powers of the branches. For example, in his famous concurrence to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), Justice Robert Jackson broke down the line of authority between Congress and the White House into three groups where the President is acting with express or implied authority from Congress; where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area); and where the President is acting in defiance of Congress.

Here the Court separated cases into actions taken in core areas of executive authority, official actions taken outside those core areas, and unofficial actions. Actions deemed personal or unofficial are not protected under this ruling.

It is certainly true that the case affords considerable immunity, including for conversations with subordinates. However, this did not spring suddenly from the head Zeus. As Chief Justice John Roberts lays out in the majority opinion, there has long been robust protections afforded to presidents.

There are also a host of checks and balances on executive authority in our constitutional system. This includes judicial intervention to prevent violations of the law as well as impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.

President Biden’s hyper-ventilated response is crushingly ironic. He was vice president when President Barack Obama killed an American citizen without a trial or a charge. When former Attorney General Eric Holder announced the “kill list” policy (that included the right to kill any American citizen), he was met with applause, not condemnation.

The Obama-Biden administration then fought every effort by the family to sue the government. President Biden would have been outraged by any attempt of a Republican district attorney to charge him or President Obama with murder.

He would also be outraged by prosecutors pursuing criminal charges for the deaths associated with the deluge of undocumented persons over the Southern border.

In his address, President Biden also claimed that “the law would no longer” define “the limits of the presidency.”

That is also untrue. This case was remanded for the purpose of defining what of these functions would be deemed private as opposed to official. Even on official actions, former president Donald Trump could be prosecuted if the presumptive immunity is rebutted by prosecutors.

What was most glaring for many civil libertarians was President Biden’s portrayal of himself as a paragon of constitutional fealty. He declared that “I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers as I have for the last three-and-a-half years.”

That was also untrue. President Biden has racked up an impressive array of losses in federal courts where he was found to have violated the constitution.

This includes rulings that his administration has exceeded his authority and engaged in racial discrimination in federal programs. Indeed, Biden has often displayed a cavalier attitude toward such violations.

For example, the Biden administration was found to have violated the Constitution in its imposition of a nationwide eviction moratorium through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Biden admitted that his White House counsel and most legal experts told him the move was unconstitutional. But he ignored their advice and went with that of Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe, the one person who would tell him what he wanted to hear. It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.

Biden showed the same disregard over the unconstitutionality of his effort to unilaterally forgive roughly half a trillion dollars in student debt. Courts have already enjoined that effort as presumptively unconstitutional (though an appellate court in one of those cases relaxed aspects of the injunction).

The address was used to reinforce his “democracy is on the ballot” campaign theme. Pundits have repeated the mantra, claiming that if Biden is not elected, American democracy will perish.

While some of us have challenged these predictions, the other presidential candidates are missing a far more compelling argument going into this election. While democracy is not on the ballot this election, free speech is.

For many of us in the free speech community, President Biden has become the most anti-free speech president since John Adams.

As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” the Biden Administration has helped fund and maintain an unprecedented censorship system in the United States.

That record is hardly supportive for a president claiming to be the defender, if not the savior, of the Constitution.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vtc_n4Tqr8k

< more embedded links at link >

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/RealMacReport/status/1809641254583693800

🚨Breaking: Judge Cannon has granted President Trump's request to have some deadlines paused in the Jack Smith "Classified Documents" case to consider the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling on Presidential Immunity and its possible effect on the case.

— Real Mac Report (@RealMacReport) July 6, 2024



more info



https://x.com/BadlandsMedia_/status/1809645398010569079

Badlands Media
@BadlandsMedia_
President Trump secured another victory in his classified documents case on Saturday, as Judge Cannon issued a temporary stay on the July 8 deadline for expert disclosures and the July 10 deadline for the defense to provide information to prosecutors.

She also set a new deadline of July 21 for both parties to submit briefs on the relevance of presidential immunity to the case.

https://badlandsmedia.tv/judge-grant...g-on-immunity/

[mountain_jim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...unity-decision


"A Death Squad Ruling": The Press And Pundits Make Wild Claims In The Wake Of The Court’s Immunity Decision

BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, JUL 08, 2024 - 09:55 AM

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in The Hill on the over-wrought reaction to the Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States. Commentators seemed to compete for the most alarmist accounts from court-sanctioned death squads to political assassinations to the death of democracy. From the coverage of the immunity decision, one would think that the Madisonian Democracy was being replaced by a John Wick Republic. The academic and media accounts have little basis in the actual opinion. Despite the prediction of Rachel Maddow that this was a “Death Squad Ruling,” the only thing that seemed to die was objective reporting and commentary in the wake of the decision.



On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow warned that the Supreme Court had just unleashed death squads to roam our streets. CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen announced that murder was now legal (at least for presidents), while others predicted that the ruling on presidential immunity would invite “tyranny.”

Anyone reading the coverage would conclude that James Madison has been replaced by John Wick in a new “Baba Yaga” Republic.

President Biden fueled the sense of panic in an address that repeated widespread false claims about the decision in Trump v. United States. Biden told the country that “for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.”

That, of course, is not true.

I have long opposed sweeping presidential privileges and powers. I have long argued that a sitting president can be criminally charged in office. But the portrayal of this Supreme Court opinion by the left and the media is wildly off base.

As it has in the past, the court adopted a three-tiered approach to presidential powers based on the source of a presidential action. Chief Justice John Roberts cited Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in which the court ruled against President Harry Truman’s takeover of steel mills.

In his famous concurrence to Youngstown, Justice Robert Jackson broke down the balance of executive and legislative authority between three types of actions. In the first, a president acts with express or implied authority from Congress. In the second, he acts where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area). In the third, the president acts in defiance of Congress.

In this decision, the court adopted a similar sliding scale. It held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial or private actions.

The proceedings in Manhattan after the decision belie the claims that a president can now commit murder with impunity. Judge Juan Merchan is likely to find that Trump’s conduct in office in approving payments related to Stormy Daniels fall into the third, unprotected category. While some of the testimony may have intruded into protected areas, most experts anticipate that the court will reject dismissal of charges under an absolute immunity claim. Judges in the other Trump prosecutions will be performing the same inquiry, though the impact is likely to be much greater in the case of the special counsel in Washington, D.C.

In fairness to critics, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent gave credence to their hyperbolic theories. Sotomayor wrote: “The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

The dissent ignores parts of the majority opinion that expressly refute such claims. For example, the majority discussed how prosecutors could present evidence in a bribery case that a president “allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.” The prosecution can overcome the presumption of immunity with such evidence.

Indeed, the majority stated that Trump’s alleged “private scheme with private actors” to create alternative slates of electors “cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular presidential function." If that is established by the trial court, then Trump’s actions would not be protected by any sort of immunity.

In defining official functions, the Court referenced constitutional and statutory authority. It also recognized that a president must be able to speak to the public on matters of public interest, as Trump did on Jan. 6, 2021. While some of us believe that Trump’s speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment, the justices suggested that it was also protected as a matter of immunity.

That is a far cry from a green light for death squads. The idea that Trump could not order a slate of fake electors but could order a slew of political assassinations finds little support in the actual opinion.

Sotomayor is suggesting that the president could just declare that killing an opponent is in the national security interest. However, various laws contradict the claim that such acts are left to the discretion of the president. Not only would the military likely refuse such an unlawful order, but no court would consider it a core constitutional function.

The opinion draws lines with ample protection for presidents. The court cited opinions and practices going back decades for such breathing space.

Ironically, Biden’s hyperbolic account of the court’s opinion only serves to highlight the decision of former President Barack Obama and his vice president, Joe Biden, to kill an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, in a drone attack without a charge, let alone a conviction.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Obama administration’s “kill list” policy to a group of lawyers and judges at Northwestern University Law School and received not condemnation but applause. Under Holder, the Obama administration fought every effort of the al-Awlaki family to seek information on the killing and insisted that courts had no role to play in such cases.

Yet, in the wake of the immunity decision, Holder expressed shock at the implication of the presidential power.

Could Obama and Biden be charged with murder for what they did? Most say no, because they were acting in fulfillment of their national security authority. If so, could they simply declare a political opponent to be an enemy combatant? They actually did maintain, years before this Supreme Court opinion, that such a decision was left to them and figures such as Holder.

I likewise represented the House of Representatives in successfully challenging Obama’s spending billions under the Affordable Care Act that had not been approved by Congress. I also represented House members who contested Obama’s undeclared war in Libya. Could he be criminally charged for those actions?

Likewise, Biden as president has been repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, exercising racial discrimination and seeking to excuse billions in debt illegally.

The court was trying to find a middle path in addressing such controversies. In doing so, it rejected the extreme arguments of both the Trump team and the lower courts.

Putting aside the three-tiered approach, even a finding of presidential immunity does not mean that, as Biden falsely claimed, “there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.” It only concerns when a president can be personally charged. Federal courts can enjoin presidents from unlawful conduct, Congress can investigate presidents under oversight authority, impeach them and remove them from office.

The decision does not bar any and all prosecutions of presidents. It is still true, as stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 65, that presidents remain subject to the criminal justice system. After impeachment and removal from office, he stressed, the president ”will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

The opinion delineated those areas and evidence that may be barred from prosecution while allowing that prosecution is possible in other cases.

That nuance is lost in our current political environment. Biden and his allies spent months claiming that democracy will end and gay people will simply all be “disappeared” if he is defeated. So, there was admittedly little room left to escalate his rhetoric aside from death squads and a government based on a political “Assassin’s Creed.”

After all, these finer constitutional points are not nearly as riveting as the image of death squads roaming our streets. However, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of democracy’s death are greatly exaggerated.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School and author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”



.........

comments



When Bill Clinton bombed and killed 100,000 Serbs without our declaring war on anyone in order to divert attention from his Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Democrats and the press said nothing.

When Obama droned countless wedding parties to kill one "terrorist", killing everyone, no Democrat raised a peep.

Sotomeyer's dissent and propagandists like Rachel Madcow ignore that there is only absolute immunity for Presidents acting "within their exclusive sphere of Constitutional authority." That does not allow them to do whatever they want, like murder people.

The real evil of these Democrat Bolsheviks is their war on reason.

//


the link to baba yaga is what really jumped out at me. i remember a restaurant by that name in houston ...off of montrose (if you know houston, that speaks volumes, lol!)

i had no idea of the meaning behind the name...

" In Russian folklore, Baba Yaga is a witch who lives in a disheveled home that stands on chicken legs. The "real" Baba Yaga lures children into her home to devour them. She surrounds her home with the human remains of her victims. "

p.s. for some reason after reading that, i immediately thought of hillary, lol!

[thepainterdoug]

Sorry folks another long one, but was sent to me and worth a read. its from several months back

~~~

WHEN JUSTICE TAKES A HOLIDAY
By: E. P. UNUM
May 31, 2024


May 30, 2024, is a date that will go down in the annals of American Jurisprudence as one of the most shameful days in our 237-year history. On this day, in New York City, the former 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, was found guilty on 34 counts of ridiculous charges in a ridiculous trial presided over by a ridiculous judge who probably has a tattoo on his backside saying: Get Trump. To say that Judge Juan Merchan was biased in favor of the Prosecution is the understatement of this century. His rulings from the bench and his instructions to the Jury are a stain on the honor of our Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the expectation of Justice. Judge Merchan did not need to take the trouble of crafting 55 pages of Instructions for the jury. All he needed to say to the twelve jurists was….Find Donald J. Trump Guilty of…..something! I still do not understand what crime President Trump supposedly committed! Do you? We now will await the sentencing from Judge Merchan scheduled for July 11 to see what other atrocity will be perpetrated against the former President: incarceration, house arrest, or any one of a host of other steps meant to inhibit his campaign run further and provide for the maximum embarrassment of the former President. Trust me; Joe Biden and his gaggle of acolytes have their hands in this.
At the end of the day I thought I saw tears rolling down the face of the Lady with blindfolds covering her eyes, balancing the scales of Justice in front of the New York Supreme Court Building. Her tears were real, and they portend danger for all of us.
Judge Merchan, Attorney General Alvin Bragg, prosecutor Michael Colangelo (fresh from the DOJ), and others are corrupt to the core. They know that Trump was not guilty of anything, certainly not the thirty-four felony counts they concocted against the former President. But they executed their plan with meticulous precision. Their plan was always to keep Donald Trump away from the campaign trail in pursuit of the Presidency because they know what most of the country knows: that Joe Biden cannot win re-election fairly on his own. He really cannot debate Trump fairly and successfully. Biden is mentally and physically unstable. He is an empty vessel incapable of putting coherent sentences together, and his policies on energy, illegal immigration, protecting our border, and dealing with rampant inflation are abysmal. And in terms of foreign relations, he has no policy and no plan whatsoever and has been a total failure. He has taken our country down the path of the progressive liberal focus on the so-called ‘existential threat’called climate change, spending hundreds of billions of dollars…. money we do not have…while achieving absolutely nothing! To date, we have spent $7.5 billion building charging stations….you know, the 500,000 charging stations we were supposed to build to assist travelers driving electric vehicles. Do you know how many the Biden Team has built? Five (5)! I don’t know about you, but $1.5 billion per charging station seems a bit high. Then again, as Barack Hussein Obama reminded us so eloquently…”Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f--k things up.” Everything…and I mean everything… Biden touches turns to a pile of manure!
But, together with all the other democrats in Washington D.C., they are seeking to hold on to power to take America down the path of the global elites and turn our country into an elaborate socialist state with them, of course, as the ruling class.
What chumps! They are evil incarnate, led by the most corrupt, malevolent politician in the history of our nation… a known plagiarist, chronic and habitual liar… Joe Biden.
These neophytes have bought off more than they can chew. Please remember this: If a government can take down a billionaire and former President like Donald Trump by weaponizing the criminal justice system against him, they can do it to John Q Public…you and me. In their quest to retain power by any means, they have opened the door to usher in greater injustice. How long will it take for some corrupt, disingenuous state attorney general to charge another President, Congressman, or Senator they hate with crimes they invent out of thin air…never once disclosing the crimes they are alleging to the accused? You say a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution? Not anymore. Alvin Bragg just did it successfully. What is to stop them from doing it again?
And that, my friends and colleagues, is the sad lesson with which, sooner or later, we will come face to face.
But here is something Joe Biden, Alvin Bragg, prosecutor Michael Colangelo (fresh from the DOJ), and their new street spokesman actor Robert DeNiro have not counted on: The American people are not stupid. They see through the farce of the Trump Trial. They know that Joe Biden was behind all of it. And if there is one thing Americans hate, it is someone who cheats. They do not like cheats in sports, males competing against females, spelling bees, history debates, science and math contests…. frankly… anything. Americans believe in fair play, and they despise anyone who cheats.
So, I believe Justice took a holiday yesterday, May 30, 2024. But that lady will return reinvigorated. The lady with the blindfold holding the scales of Justice will wipe away her tears, and true Americans will pull together and support Donald Trump. Trump will prevail in November 2024, and we will have him as our president in January 2025.
The nightmare that has been the Biden Presidency will become a distant and painful memory.
I want to bring two factual events to your attention in this essay. The first is that May 30th, the day Trump was found guilty on 34 “felony” counts in a Kangaroo New York Court, is also the feast day of St. Joan of Arc, the patron saint of prisoners and hero of patriots who are politically persecuted.
The second occurred over 2,000 years ago. The mob, led by High Priest Caiphas, persuaded the Romans that a man called Jesus was guilty of…. something. They feared Him because He was righteous, committed no crimes, and only did good deeds. He made the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers healed, and the deaf hear. For this, the Romans crucified him unjustly. I think you know the rest of that story.
The story of President Trump is not yet over.
So, for you, Joe Biden, please remind Jill Biden not to take any of the drapes or dishware on her way out the White House door in January 2025. And another friendly word for you, Joe: Leave all those files marked Top Secret behind because some young up-and-coming attorney general might authorize a raid on your beach property and, in the discharge of their duties, damage your Corvette! And if they find any documents marked Top Secret, well, the whole damn thing just might start all over again! This time, you might have to face another deposition with Robert Hur before a TV audience.

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/catturd2/status/1812849069477216331

breaking ...

Judge Cannon has dismissed the Trump classified documents case.

BAM !!!

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) July 15, 2024





https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisond...-judge-cannon/

BREAKING
Trump Classified Documents Case Dismissed By Judge Cannon
Alison Durkee
Forbes Staff
Alison is a senior news reporter covering US politics and legal news.


TOPLINE U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon formally dismissed the federal charges against former President Donald Trump for allegedly withholding White House documents on Monday, ruling Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed—the latest in a series of blows to criminal cases against the former president.


KEY FACTS
Cannon sided with Trump’s request to dismiss the charges against him under the Constitution’s Appointment Clause, as the ex-president claimed Smith’s appointment by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the law.

The judge—a Trump appointee—ruled someone with Smith’s level of power should only have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

She also ruled Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, because Congress had not appropriated funds to Smith’s investigations as required under federal law.

The Justice Department has not yet responded to a request for comment.

This story is breaking and will be updated.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/polit...non/index.html

Judge dismisses classified documents case against Donald Trump
Katelyn Polantz
By Katelyn Polantz, CNN

Federal district judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed the classified documents case against Donald Trump.

In a ruling Monday, Cannon said the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated the Constitution.

“In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny,” Cannon wrote.

The earth-shattering ruling by Cannon, a judge Trump appointed in 2020, clears away one of the major legal challenges facing the former president, and comes on the first day of the Republican National Convention. Many legal experts had viewed the classified documents case as the strongest one of the four cases that were pending against the former president.

Smith had charged Trump last year with taking classified documents from the White House and resisting the government’s attempts to retrieve the materials. He pleaded not guilty.

In a separate criminal case brought by Smith against Trump in Washington, DC, the special counsel was pursuing federal charges stemming from Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Trump also faces a state-level election subversion case in Georgia and he was convicted of state crimes in New York earlier this year for his role in a hush money payment scheme before the 2016 election.

Trump’s efforts to dismiss the case under the appointments clause was seen as a long shot, as several special counsels – even during his own presidential administration – were run the same way.

But the fringe argument gained steam when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas threw his support behind the theory, writing in a footnote in the high court’s presidential immunity decision that there are “serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.”

Still, Cannon held a hearing on the issue several weeks ago, pushing attorneys to explain exactly how Smith’s investigation into Trump was being funded. The judge’s questions were so pointed that special counsel attorney James Pearce argued that, even if Cannon were to throw out the case due to an appointments clause issue, the Justice Department was “prepared” to fund Smith’s cases through trial if necessary.

Smith’s office has not responded to a call for comment.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

[mountain_jim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/tr...el-appointment

Trump Classified Docs Case Dismissed, Judge Finds Special Counsel Appointment Unconstitutional

BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, JUL 15, 2024 - 09:57 AM
US District Court Judge Eileen Cannon has dismissed Donald Trump's classified documents case, ruling that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutional.

https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1812848096914690190

"The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers," Cannon wrote in her decision. "He can be appointed and confirmed through the default method prescribed in the Appointments Clause, as Congress has directed for United States Attorneys throughout American history."

"Dismissal of this action is the only appropriate solution for the Appointments Clause violation."

The ruling comes after Judge Cannon had indefinitely postponed the trial, and followed a May hearing in which Trump and co-defendant Walt Nauta argued that the Justice Department’s Special Counsel’s Office decision to prosecute the valet was “both selective and vindictive.”

In a statement on Truth Social, Trump wrote: "As we move forward in Uniting our Nation after the horrific events on Saturday, this dismissal of the Lawless Indictment in Florida should be just the first step, followed quickly by the dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts," adding "The Democrat Justice Department coordinated ALL of these Political Attacks, which are an Election Interference conspiracy against Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME. Let us come together to END all Weaponization of our Justice System, and Make America Great Again!"

The ruling marks another blockbuster legal victory for Trump, following the Supreme Court's July 1 ruling that the former president has immunity from prosecution for many of his actions in office.

https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1812850437948657898

https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1812857070464446864

According to Reuters, prosecutors are likely to appeal the ruling, as courts in other cases have repeatedly upheld the ability of the DOJ to appoint special counsels for politically sensitive investigations.

But Cannon’s ruling throws the future of the case, which once posed serious legal peril for Trump, into doubt. Smith is also prosecuting Trump in federal court in Washington over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, but his lawyers have not made a similar challenge to the special counsel in that case.

In the documents case, Trump was indicted on charges that he willfully retained sensitive national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago social club after leaving office and obstructed government efforts to retrieve the material.

Trump's attorneys challenged the legal authority of Biden AG Merrick Garland's 2022 decision to appoint Smith - arguing that the appointment violated the Constitution because his office was not created by Congress, nor was Smith confirmed by the Senate.

< more at link >

[thepainterdoug]

WHEELS COMING OF THE LIB DEM COMMIE ELECTION INTERFERENCE AGENDA DRIVEN, COUP.

I have been thinking on that remote viewing event , portending a violent DNC coming.

All things aligning for it to happen.

[Lunesoleil]

[mountain_jim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...fraud-judgment

Trump Asks Appeals Court To Overturn $454 Million Civil Fraud Judgment

BY TYLER DURDEN
TUESDAY, JUL 23, 2024 - 03:05 PM
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump on July 22 asked a New York appeals court to overturn the $454 million New York civil fraud judgment that was handed down earlier this year.



In court papers filed with First Department of the State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, the state’s mid-level court, his lawyers wrote that Manhattan Judge Arthur Engoron’s Feb. 16 finding, that claimed former President Trump made false statements to insurers, banks, and other entities about his wealth, was incorrect.

“Based on the ruling in this case, no company will want to come to New York to do business, and many businesses are fleeing,” his attorneys wrote.

“The economic aspects of this decision are a disaster for New York.“ The New York Attorney General’s office ”has used the statute in a way never seen before,” they added.

The lawyers said “there were no victims and no losses,” adding that the former president’s business partners “raved internally about their business with him and were eager for more.”

In their appeal, they contended that the judge made an “erroneous” decision and, during the case, “struggled to understand basic banking concepts” before he handed down the fine. They further said that he erred in rejecting an earlier appeals court decision regarding the statute of limitations for the case, arguing that New York Attorney General Letitia James’ civil lawsuit should have been dismissed.

The former president’s team also contended that after Justice Engoron’s decision, it gives the state attorney general’s office “limitless power to target anyone,“ including ”political opponents,” according to the 116-page filing.

“If Appellants’ conduct constituted ‘fraud’ [...] then that word has no meaning, and [New York Attorney General’s] power to seize and destroy private businesses is boundless—and standardless,” the attorneys added.

Before the trial, Justice Engoron rejected many of the Trump attorneys’ objections as the case proceeded, at one point equating them to the plot of the movie “Groundhog Day” and fining some of the lawyers $7,500 each for “repetitive, frivolous” argument. The Appellate Division previously denied former President Trump’s bid to end the case on statute of limitations and other grounds.

After the judge handed down the judgment, former President Trump posted a $175 million bond in April to halt its collection and prevent interest from accruing. The move also blocked Ms. James from seizing some of his assets in New York City while he appeals the matter.

The Epoch Times contacted the New York Attorney General’s office for comment Tuesday.

In a statement to multiple news outlets, Ms. James’ office said that the appeal filed Monday repeats some arguments that were already rejected. “We won this case based on the facts and the law, and we are confident we will prevail on appeal,” a spokesperson said.

Former President Trump, the Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election in November, has maintained his innocence in the fraud case, saying he’s being unfairly targeted.

Should former President Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, have to pay the entire judgment, it could imperil his cash reserves, although he might be able to recoup some of those losses due to his large stake in Trump Media, which owns his Truth Social platform.

Earlier this year, he was ordered in a separate case to pay nearly $84 million in damages after a New York jury found that he defamed a writer, E. Jean Carroll.

In May of this year, he was convicted by a Manhattan jury on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in relation to payments made during the 2016 campaign. Sentencing for that case is scheduled for September.

The Manhattan case may be the only one of four cases against former President Trump that goes to trial before the November election. A federal judge in Florida last week dismissed federal charges involving his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House, arguing that the special counsel appointed in that case, Jack Smith, was improperly appointed by the Department of Justice. Mr. Smith has vowed to appeal the judgment.

Two other election-related cases brought against him in Washington and Georgia have been stalled, and it’s not clear when either will go to trial, if ever. The former president had pleaded not guilty to all charges in the four cases.