jallajall

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!

Hvorfor ble dette klippet vekk fra VP debatten ???!

Tror neppe Trump er en større fare for verden enn Harris & co, snarere tvert i mot.

Vance is right. Harris and Walz are a threat to Americans' free speech. for the free speech community, the prospect of a Harris-Walz administration is chilling. Where President Joe Biden was viewed as supporting censorship out of political opportunism, Harris and Walz are viewed as true believers. We are living through the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in American history. We have never before faced the current alliance of government, corporate, academic and media forces aligned against free speech. A Harris-Walz administration with a supportive Congress could make this right entirely dispensable.

Democratic senator worried Netanyahu trying to ‘influence’ US election Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) says he’s worried Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be trying to influence the U.S. presidential election by showing little interest in striking a peace deal with Hamas and instead escalating the threat of a broader war in the Middle East by aggressively confronting Hezbollah in Lebanon. Aha.

Andre dokumenter vi kan håpe blir offentliggjort før valget et DOJs IG rapport om 6. januar og FOIA-dokumenter om Biden fra nasjonalarkivet, men dessverre har DOJ besluttet at disse ikke skal offentliggjøres før etter valget. (Bidendokumentene fra nasjonalarkivet skal slippes 6. november, dagen etter valget)

Er nok en viss fare for Cannons kjennelse til syvende og sist blir opprettholdt. Kom også en "brief of Amici Curiae" (juridiske råd til retten) i går som støtter det. Top Legal Scholars Back Judge Cannon’s Ruling That Scuttles Jack Smith’s Mar-a-Lago Case Against Trump Judge Cannon’s most dramatic finding was that the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Nixon — that the attorney general is empowered to appoint subordinate prosecutors — was not binding. This brief acknowledges that “from the 1850s through the 1950s, during six presidential administrations, Attorneys General retained outside lawyers as Special Counsels.” Mr. Barrett Tillman et al. argue that the Watergate Special Prosecutor at issue in Nixon was, as the justices put it, granted “unique authority and tenure.” That would mean that Judge Cannon is correct that the holding of Nixon “is not controlling, and it should not be extended to today’s context.” The amici also revive their argument, first made before Judge Cannon, that Mr. Smith is not an “officer” in constitutional terms, but a mere “employee” because “his position is not continuous, because his extant position would not continue to a successor.” As an employee, he “cannot exercise the sweeping powers of a Senate confirmed U.S. Attorney.” This brief posits that the “Supreme Court has resolved constitutional questions that were raised only by amici,” not by the parties themselves. If the Nine agree, the question of whether Justice Scalia was correct in discerning that the independent counsel is a constitutional affront could be revisited. “This wolf comes as a wolf” is how Scalia put the threat to the “boldness of the President.”

Parents sue school district for banning silent protest of transgender sports policy at games New Hampshire district, police and even soccer referee treated school property as a "First Amendment free zone, from which they can banish parents who speak in ways the government dislikes," plaintiffs say. Parents and a grandparent who silently protested male eligibility for girls' soccer, by wearing pink wristbands with the letters "XX" in reference to the female chromosome pair, sued a New Hampshire district, officials and even soccer referee, claiming retaliation against their speech, including a ban on stepping on any school property. Wild. Synes jeg stadig ser oftere og oftere skoler som har "safe zones" som kun setter av et lite område man kan bedrive "free speech" på. Skal beskyttes mot alt man ikke liker.

..men Trump derimot, som er med i en kult, kan styrte påtroppende administrasjon og bli tatt i ed 20. januar - kun ved bruk av løgn? Vil ikke bli stoppet av noe eller noen?

..og det er det du mener er harde og vanskelige spørsmål?

Konkret hvordan kan hun lyve seg til statskupp?

Ja hvilke andre grunner kan det være enn at det ENTEN må være at "han har insett at han har tar feil" ELLER at "han synes Putin er en topp type". Finnes lissom ikke noen som helst andre alternativer, er KUN de to forklaringene som er mulig.

Hvordan endte du opp med akkuratt dét alternativet?

Hva er det som egentlig får deg til å anta noe slik om en motdebattant? ("Putin ikke er en så fæl fascistisk diktator som har bygd sitt styre på en trone av nasjonalisme og invaderer naboland fordi Russland eide dem før.")