jallajall

Hva er alternativet?

Det er jo ikke bare slik andre fremstiller henne, men også andre demokrater, inkl guvernører som Newsom og Polis som sier det rett ut, men også hun selv når hun snakker om en "new way forward", hvordan hun er fokusert på fremtid i stedet for fortid, og alt slik. Både hun og demokratene prøver å fremstille henne som noe annet enn "more of the same" - more of the same ville jo vært bra dersom det hadde vært en vinneroppskrift, noe det ikke er.

Jobbtallene ble nylig nedjustert med nesten 900.000 fra mars 2023 til mars 2024, forteller de ikke slike ting til Biden?

Jo det har hun jo (media har jo skrevet masse om det, første google treff eksempel eksempel eksempel eksempel eksempel eksempel), og det må hun jo også gjøre. Det er jo derfor Trump-kampanjen hamrer løs på at hun bare er mer av det samme vi har sett de fire siste årene. Mer-av-det-samme er jo gjerne det en sittende president går for når han skal stille til gjenvalg, men det er ingen vinneroppskrift i 2024. Det ville vært mye mer strategist lurt av Biden og Harris og sagt de har hatt uenigheter, men at Harris har valgt å støtte han, i stedet for å tegne et bilde av de hele tiden er samstemte og går hånd i hånd inn i solnedgangen hver gang..

Donald Trump Gets Polling Boost Among Women Likely To Decide Election Donald Trump is seeing an increase in support among white women voters who do not have a college degree, a key demographic expected to play a decisive role in the upcoming election. According a PBS News/NPR/Marist poll, conducted between September 27 and October 1, Trump holds a 1-point lead among non-college educated white women, with 55 percent of the vote to Vice President Kamala Harris' 42 percent. Og hos CNN's poll for Micigan er han til og med likt med Harris på unge velger 18-29 år (45-45), en gruppe Biden vant med 24 poeng. ..men verken PBS/Marist eller CNN/SSRS er blant de mest treffsikre, men kanskje pollingen er bedre i år enn den har vært tidligere?

Helene hit Trump strongholds in Georgia and North Carolina. It could swing the election. Hurricane Helene hit especially hard in heavily Republican areas of Georgia and North Carolina — a fact that could work to Donald Trump’s disadvantage in the two swing states. Joa..

Ja hva er egentlig rollen til en VP..ifølge grunnloven? Harris = Biden. Vanskelig å brande seg som en change kandidat da.

Etter 1353 dager tar Biden endelig for første gang turen innom presserommet i det kvite hus. Biden om Kamala: “We’re singing from the same song sheet. She helped pass all the laws. She was a major player in everything we’ve done.”

Forøvrig litt mer om Fawzia for en mnd siden: https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-817572

Sure. Saken havnet offisielt hos Chutkan igjen 2. august. 10 uker før valget, 27. august, sender Smith inn en ny siktelse som erstatter den gamle. Samme tiltaler, basert på mindre bevis. Shrinkflation. 5. september får han tillatelse til å sende inn briefen sin før Team Trump, og han bruker imponerende kun 3 uker på dette. Vi er godt innenfor 60-90 dager helt siden saken havnet tilbake på pulten til Chutkan. Men hvorfor så hastverk for Smith, når det åpenbart vil påvirke valget?

Bolton vs Ramaswamy: US Foreign Policy. Old right vs New right. Neocon vs America First.

Kan det tenkes å påvirke valget å gå mot føderale regler han selv er underlagt for å pushet ut dette nå? Hvorfor var det viktig å få sendt inn nå, det er jo ikke relevant eller avgjørende for saken? The way motions work – under the federal rules, and consistent with common sense – is that the prosecutor files an indictment; the defense makes motions (to dismiss charges, to suppress evidence, or what have you); and then the prosecution responds to those motions. Makes sense, right? It’s worked for hundreds of years in our courts. Not here. Not when there’s an election right around the corner and dwindling opportunity to make a dent. So Smith turned the well-established, thoroughly uncontroversial rules of criminal procedure on their head and asked Judge Chutkan for permission to file first – even with no actual defense motion pending. Trump’s team objected, and the judge acknowledged that Smith’s request to file first was “procedurally irregular” – moments before she ruled in Smith’s favor, as she’s done at virtually every consequential turn. Which brings us to the second point: Smith’s proactive filing is prejudicial to Trump, legally and politically. It’s ironic. Smith has complained throughout the case that Trump’s words might taint the jury pool. Yet Smith now uses grand jury testimony (which ordinarily remains secret at this stage) and drafts up a tidy 165-page document that contains all manner of damaging statements about a criminal defendant, made outside of a trial setting and without being subjected to the rules of evidence or cross-examination, and files it publicly, generating national headlines. You know who’ll see those allegations? The voters, sure – and also members of the jury pool.

Finnes nok av legal expert som mener det motsatte. Kommer helt an på hvem man spør. For eksempel, hvis Jack Smith bestemmer seg for å holde pressekonferanser hver dag frem til valget, så er ikke dette en handling som kan tenkes å påvirke valget?

Avhengig av hvem man spør, så konkluderer de med enten 60 eller 90 dager før et valg. Hvor i DOJs policy står det at pågående saker er unntatt policien om valgpåvirkning? Det gjør det jo bare enda mer utsatt for sabotasje og påvirkning.

9-85.500 Actions that May Have an Impact on an Election Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See § 9-27.260. Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an issue under this provision requires consultation with the Public Integrity Section, and such action shall not be taken if the Public Integrity Section advises that further consultation is required with the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General. (60 eller 90 dager, litt avhengig av hvem man spør) Så du tror ikke dette "may have an impact on election" ?

Det er en grunn til at DOJ har en slik policy. Det er jo heller ikke Trump som har utsatt dette til nå. Saken ble behandlet i Scotus i begynner av august og sendt tilbake til retten i slutten av august. Så har team Smith kun brukt ca 3 uker på denne briefen, som også jo er imponerende i seg selv. Og av en eller annen grunn, så er det viktig for Smith at han får oppenftliggjort briefen sin allerede nå, og før valget. Hvorfor tror du det? Smith turned the well-established, thoroughly uncontroversial rules of criminal procedure on their head and asked Judge Chutkan for permission to file first – even with no actual defense motion pending

Hjernen til hvem? DOJs longstanding policy? I’m going to hand this one over to one of DOJ’s most esteemed alums, who explained it this way to the Justice Department’s internal watchdog: “To me if it [an election] were 90 days off, and you think it has a significant chance of impacting an election, unless there’s a reason you need to take that action now, you don’t do it.” Those words were spoken by Sally Yates — former deputy attorney general, venerated career prosecutor, no fan of Trump (who unceremoniously fired her in 2017), and liberal folk hero.

Også Elie Honig (senior legal analyst for CNN) hamrer løs på Smith. Jack Smith’s October Cheap Shot Jack Smith has failed in his quest to try Donald Trump before the 2024 election. So instead, the special counsel has bent ordinary procedure to get in one last shot, just weeks before voters go to the polls. Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects. At this point, there’s simply no defending Smith’s conduct on any sort of principled or institutional basis. “But we need to know this stuff before we vote!” is a nice bumper sticker, but it’s neither a response to nor an excuse for Smith’s unprincipled, norm-breaking practice. (It also overlooks the fact that the Justice Department bears responsibility for taking over two and a half years to indict in the first place.) Let’s go through the problems with what Smith has done here. First, this is backward. The way motions work — under the federal rules, and consistent with common sense — is that the prosecutor files an indictment; the defense makes motions (to dismiss charges, to suppress evidence, or what have you); and then the prosecution responds to those motions. Makes sense, right? It’s worked for hundreds of years in our courts. Not here. Not when there’s an election right around the corner and dwindling opportunity to make a dent. So Smith turned the well-established, thoroughly uncontroversial rules of criminal procedure on their head and asked Judge Chutkan for permission to file first — even with no actual defense motion pending. Trump’s team objected, and the judge acknowledged that Smith’s request to file first was “procedurally irregular” — moments before she ruled in Smith’s favor, as she’s done at virtually every consequential turn. Smith’s conduct here violates core DOJ principle and policy. The Justice Manual — DOJ’s internal bible, essentially — contains a section titled “Actions That May Have an Impact on the Election.” Now: Does Smith’s filing qualify? May it have an impact on the election? Of course.

Jack Smith’s October Surprise It’s impossible not to suspect the special counsel’s filing is politically motivated. He rushed to file a superseding indictment in August that alleged the same four crimes, taking a minuscule view of core constitutional powers. He then requested the trial judge allow him to file an “oversized” brief—up to 180 pages—laying out the government’s arguments against immunity, and asking her to unseal it. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted the requests, ignoring the Trump legal team’s opposition to a brief that was “quadruple the standard page limits” and that allowed the prosecution “to proffer their untested and biased views to the Court and the public as if they are conclusive.” That brief was made public on Wednesday, 34 days before the election. You don’t have to be a cynic to suspect Mr. Smith of brass-knuckle politicking. He knows that if Mr. Trump wins in November, both his cases (this one, involving Jan. 6, and the other, involving classified documents) are dead. Ergo Mr. Smith is actively working to undermine a Trump re-election by presenting to the public a bevy of new claims painting the nominee as criminal. This is manna to Democrats, who are desperate for their Jan. 6 lawfare campaign to dominate the final sprint, to divert voters (finally!) from their (tedious) obsessions with inflation, border chaos or crime. Will Mr. Smith’s assist help? But that’s beside the point. The damage is done. The brief is out. And if Kamala Harris does win, half the country will point to this filing as a reason—the latest Justice Department “interference” in an election. Mr. Garland must be proud.

True.

John Kerry says First Amendment is the enemy, as elites try to stamp out free speech If you want to know how hostile the global elite are to free speech, look no further than John Kerry’s recent speech to the World Economic Forum. Rather than extol the benefits of democratic liberty versus dictatorships and oligarchs, Kerry called the First Amendment a “major block” to keeping people from believing the “wrong” things. Kerry continued: “Democracies around the world now are struggling with the absence of a sort of truth arbiter, and there’s no one who defines what facts really are.” Dersom Trump vinner, bør han opprette et Ministry of Truth som definerer hva som er fakta og løgn, slik at man kan bekjempe misinformasjon?

Firefighters union declines to issue presidential endorsement The International Association of Fire Fighters was the first union to back Joe Biden in 2020 — effectively doing so even before he entered the crowded Democratic primary. Enda en fagforening som ikke støtter demokratenes presidentkandidat.

Nate Silver: Should Kamala Harris gamble on a Blue Florida? As of today, our model gives Kamala Harris a 21 percent chance of winning Florida’s 30 electoral votes At this point, a normal sized polling error that favors Harris could result in a Democratic victory. Nei.

Ingen Nikki Haley denne gangen.

Gode tall for republikanerne i PA på ballot requests!