“We have to demonstrate that he WILL NOT take power — if he does run — by making sure he, under the legitimate efforts of the Constitution, DOES NOT become the next president again.” sagde Biden sidste år. Og efter denne seneste sigtelse lægger Joe Biden en hånende video på Twitter, hvor han med en selvtilfreds mine drikker kaffe fra en ‘Dark Brando’ krus.
Så det gør de så, ‘Den Dybe Stat’, stopper Trump inden for Forfatningens rammer, som den tolkes freestyle. Gregg Price var ikke den eneste, der bemærkede en kronologi
June 7: FBI releases documents to Congress alleging the Bidens took a $10M bribe from Burisma.
June 8: Jack Smith indicts Trump in Mar-a-Lago docs case.
July 26: Hunter Biden goes to court and rejects sweetheart plea deal after it was revealed DOJ tried to give him blanket immunity from future prosecutions.
July 27: Jack Smith adds more charges for Trump in the Mar-a-lago case.
July 31: Hunter Biden’s former business partner testifies to Congress that Joe Biden was on over 20 calls with his son’s business partners and that Burisma execs pressured them to fire the prosecutor
August 1: Jack Smith indicts Trump again for January 6.
Jesse Watters forklarer så glimrende forløbet
CNNs Van Jones forklarede i bedre tider, at alle kan bestride et valgresultat.
“@JoeBiden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch…” —
@HillaryClinton 8/25/20
“This is a free speech killing case” ifølge Jonathan Turley, der videre skrev at “this latest indictment of Trump isn’t just wrong. It is reckless.”
Special counsel Jack Smith made history on Tuesday.
It wasn’t just the federal indictment of a former president. Smith already did that in June with the indictment of Donald Trump on charges that he mishandled classified documents.
No, Smith and his team have made history in the worst way by attempting to fully criminalize disinformation by seeking the incarceration of a politician on false claims made during and after an election.
The hatred for Trump is so all-encompassing that legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment. This complaint is based largely on statements that are protected under the First Amendment. It would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections.
(…)
On the election claims, Smith declares that Trump “knew that they were false” because he was “notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue.”
The problem is that Trump had lawyers and others telling him that the claims were true. Smith is indicting Trump for believing his lawyers over his other advisers.
I criticized Trump’s Jan. 6 speech while he was still giving it and wrote that his theory on the election and the certification challenge was unfounded. However, that does not make it a crime.
If you take a red pen to protected free speech in this indictment, it would be reduced to a virtual haiku. Moreover, if you concede that Trump may have believed that the election was stolen, the complaint collapses.
Mark Levin langede hårdt ud efter den skuffende Mike Pence, Trumps tidligere driftsikre vicepræsident: “This indictment is CRAP!” Pence mener i dag at Trump har gjort vold på Forfatningen ved ikke at acceptere kuppet… jeg mener valgnederlaget. Men i dagen om til 6. Januar sagde Pence således
“I know we all got doubts about the election. I share the concerns of millions of Americans about voting irregularities. I promise you this Wed. We’ll have our day in Congress. We’ll hear the objections. We’ll hear the evidence.”
Også Bill Barr, Trumps driftssikre justitsminister, skuffer fælt, hvis man skal tro Alan Dershowitz – og det skal man – herunder
Jack Smith lyver selv i sin forklarede Deshowitz også til Megyn Kelly ifølge Breitbart
Dershowitz told the Megyn Kelly Show podcast on Friday that by his own standard, Smith could be charged with fraud, because of his omission of Trump’s “peaceful” rhetoric.
“Under the indictment itself, Jack Smith could be himself indicted. He told a direct lie in this indictment. He purported to describe the speech that President Trump made on January 6th. And he left out the key words, when President Trump said, ‘I want you to demonstrate peacefully and patriotically. You know, a lie by omission, under the law, can be as serious as a lie by commission.”
The fact that Smith repeated the error of the House impeachment managers would appear deliberate, because these phrases were the crux of Trump’s Senate trial. Trump’s lawyers even played footage of Democrats using similar “fight” rhetoric, to show its common usage.
Og han skrev videre i Daily Mail
Have no doubt, corrupting the U.S. justice system to punish a former president and current candidate nudges the country ever closer to tribalism, chaos and collapse.
If the attorney general appointed by the incumbent president authorizes the prosecution of the president’s chief election rival, the evidence of a serious crime should be overwhelming.
His guilt should be clear beyond doubt, so as to avoid any reasonable suspicion that the prosecution was motivated, even in part, by partisan consideration.
The paradigmatic ‘gun’ must indeed be ‘smoking’.
I call this the ‘Nixon standard,’ under which the guilt is so evident that even the defendant’s political allies — and certainly less sectarian independents—are satisfied that it is fair.
(…)
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Trump for falsely reporting the payment of hush money to adult firm star Stormy Daniels is scandalously inept. The legal contortions Bragg performed to criminalize a possibly immoral, yet perfectly legal, pay off are too convoluted to recount here.
Evidence related to Trump’s alleged illegal retention of classified materials at Mar-a-Lago are strong, but the supposed crime itself is rather technical and relatively minor. Hillary Clinton, who stored highly sensitive government documents on her ‘home brew’ server, never faced federal charges, neither did President Biden, Vice
President Pence or Bill Clinton’s former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger.
Why, then, charge the candidate who is in a virtual tie with the incumbent against whom he is running?
(…)
Our Constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecutions – that is prosecutions that are not based on clear rules easily knowable to defendants at the time of the alleged offenses.
Put simply, the law must be clearly established by firm precedents. There are few in this indictment.
As Thomas Jefferson once put it: the criminal law must be so clear that the average person can understand it if he ‘reads it while running.’ The spirit, if not the letter of this prohibition is violated when statutes are stretched and precedents are ignored.
Smith is charging Trump under a Reconstruction era law, adopted in 1870, that makes it a crime to ‘conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person’ exercising their Constitutionally protected rights, including the right to vote.
The provision was intended to aid African American citizens emerging from the horrors of slavery. But it has not been used to prosecute someone for contesting the legitimacy of an election.
If it were it could have been employed against House Democrats, who challenged Trump’s 2016 election victory, citing supposed voter suppression and Russian interference.
Of course, it should not have.
“Under our current understanding of free speech, Democrats ranging from Hillary Clinton to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) were engaged in protected speech when they called Trump illegitimate and challenged the certification of his win, even though they knew that their challenges were completely meritless” bemærkede Jonathan Turley videre. “Donald Trump is essentially being charged with lying & challenging election results” skrev Glenn Greenwald i samme ånd. Demokraternes krigeriske retorik han ses her og her har Republikanerne samlet godt tyve minutter, hvor Demokrater benægter valgresultatet
John Daniel Davidson kaldte det en krigserklæring mod vælgerne og konkluderer i The Federalist
Think of it this way. If Smith can indict Trump for speaking out about the election, for arguing that it was stolen or rigged, then rest assured the DOJ under Biden could indict every one of the millions of Americans who agree with Trump about 2020 and have said so publicly. Hell, Smith could probably indict me for writing this article (and especially this one).
Forget about Trump for a minute. This indictment sets a terrifying precedent that puts all Americans at risk. If the prosecution of Trump succeeds, it means the First Amendment is a dead letter in America. It means you’re not allowed to have opinions that contradict the Justice Department’s official narrative — and if you do, you’d better not have the temerity to run for high office.
Seen in that light, this latest indictment of Trump — who has now been charged with more than 75 crimes, many of them by the Biden DOJ — is an exercise in raw power. It’s not that Democrats are playing some kind of 4D chess in hopes of ginning up support for Trump among the base to ensure he’s the nominee because they think they can beat him in the general election.
No, they just want to put him in prison. They think Trump’s a criminal for opposing them, and they think the same thing about his supporters. The left wants to criminalize dissent. They don’t really think you should get a vote, much less an opinion. That’s what this indictment is about. If you think this is bad, just wait.
Heldigvis er USAs udenrigsminister Anthony Blinken en mand af principper, som han tog kraftigt afstand fra at fængsle en oppositionsleder
The United States strongly condemns Russia’s conviction of opposition leader Aleksey Navalny on politically motivated charges. The Kremlin cannot silence the truth. Navalny should be released.
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar