|
CONVICT 47-TRUMP; Jack Smiths Words on FELON TRUMP & Supreme Courts UNETHICAL Ruling
Jack Smith Breaks Silence on TRUMP Smears: DOJs Final Evidence on CONVICT 47
CONVICT 47 -TRUMP; Prop. 47 is a Term Passed in 2014 For Repetitive Nonviolent Felons Like TRUMP Final Chapter of The Special Counsels Jan. 6 Case Against Trump is Now Public AP 15 JAN 2025 https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/...,w_1480,c_fill WASHINGTON ? Less than a week before Donald Trump is sworn into office, a report from special counsel Jack Smith is refocusing attention on the brazen steps he took to cling to power at the conclusion of his first term. Those allegations have been well documented through criminal indictments and investigative reports, but the report released early Tuesday offers by far the most detailed explanation of the actions Smith took, and did not take, as well as a steadfast defense against the Republican former presidents claims that the prosecution was politically motivated. Here Are Some Of The Highlights: Smith Disputes Trumps Claim of Complete Exoneration Trump may never face trial in court for his efforts to undo the 2020 election after he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. But, Smith emphatically noted, that does not mean Trump was exonerated. Weeks after Trumps 2024 presidential win, Smiths team moved to dismiss the case and a separate case charging Trump with mishandling classified documents because of a longstanding Justice Department prohibition against prosecuting a sitting president. Trump and his lawyers have asserted that that decision proves the cases should never have been brought and that he did nothing wrong. His lawyers said in a letter urging Attorney General Merrick Garland to block the release of the report that Trump had achieved a complete exoneration. But Smith, in his own letter, called that assertion false and took pains to note that the dismissal decision was simply a reflection of his teams adherence to Justice Department policy rather than declaration of Trumps innocence. In fact, Smith said, he believes Trump would have been convicted at trial had his 2024 election victory not foreclosed a criminal prosecution. As the Office explained in its dismissal motions and in the Report, the Departments view that the Constitution prohibits Mr. Trumps indictment and prosecution while he is in office is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Governments proof, or the merits of the prosecution ? all of which the Office stands fully behind, Smith wrote. In that way, his message echoes that of Robert Mueller, who as a Justice Department special counsel during Trumps first term investigated whether the then-president had obstructed an investigation into Russian election interference. Mueller cited the same Justice Department policy as Smith and, like Smith, made clear that his findings had NOT EXONERATED Trump. Smith says his team stood up for the rule of law For more than two years, Smith stood silent in the face of blistering personal attacks from Trump and allies, who alleged that he was compromised, that he was in cahoots with the Biden White House, that the investigations he was shepherding amounted to political persecution. In His Final Public Message, Smith Responded https://media.tag24.de/1200x800/3/r/...kxl3ehz9i2.jpg His report, and in particular a letter he addressed to Garland that accompanied the document, amounts to a full-throated defense of his team and its investigative decisions. The idea that his actions were influenced by anyone in the Biden administration -Laughable, Smith wrote. The suggestion that political appointees at the Justice Department meddled with his work - Simply not so, he wrote. As for the prosecutors who comprised his team: The intense public scrutiny of our Office, threats to their safety, and relentless unfounded attacks on their character and integrity did not deter them from fulfilling their oaths and professional obligations. These are intensely good people who did hard things well. I will not forget the sacrifices they made and the personal resilience they and their families have shown over the last two years. The report was released just days before Trump is to take office again, with plans to pardon supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in a bid to halt the certification of the election results. Trump has sought to rewrite the violent history of that day in remarks as recently as this month, when he said incorrectly that none of the rioters at the Capitol had guns. While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters, Smith wrote. I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters. The facts, as we uncovered them in our investigation and as set forth in my Report, matter. Unanswered Questions Remain Around Presidential Immunity The abandoned prosecution leaves unresolved questions around the scope of presidential immunity from criminal charges following the Supreme Courts landmark ruling last year. Without that further legal wrangling, questions remain about how the Supreme Courts interpretation would be applied, Smith wrote. Smith made clear his team takes issue with the Supreme Courts ruling, which he said put a greater emphasis on protecting the independence and fearlessness of the President as opposed to the risk that immunity would encourage lawless behaviour of dishonest Presidents like Trump https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/FT...d6735308333ac8 DIRTY Trump Will Go Down In History as The FELON PRESIDENT Who Never Did Any Jail Time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h78u_JFiqOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4RE8_cZljM |
The Great REVENGE-Orwellian America: 100% ILLEGAL-TRUMP Fires DOZENS in Many Agencies
The Great Revenge as TRUMPs Orwellian America Takes Shape...
100% ILLEGAL: Trump Fires ALL Justice Department Lawyers Who Investigated Him. The Lawyers Were Part of Former Special Counsel Jack Smiths Team This comes after Trump ordered the dismissal of more than a DOZEN Inspectors General, another move that legal experts have broadly warned is illegal. PLUS Fired Labour Official Vows to Fight Trump in Court Which Wont Cost Trump One Cent. The American Taxpayers Will Foot The Bill For ALL of His Legal Costs BBC 29 JAN 2025 https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standar...a91255dc3d.jpg A dozen were fired after Acting Attorney General James McHenry concluded they could not be trusted to faithfully implement the presidents agenda because of their significant role in prosecuting the president The lawyers were part of former special counsel Jack Smiths team which investigated Trumps alleged mishandling of classified documents and his alleged attempt to overturn his 2020 election defeat. The firings on Monday are effective immediately. Trumps last attempt to purge government officials is blatantly illegal, according to experts ? and all but certain to trigger lawsuits. Trump fired more than a dozen justice department lawyers who worked on two criminal cases against him. Federal prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers on Tuesday shredded Trumps moves to purge the United States Department of Justice of lawyers who once worked for former special counsel Jack Smith. Rodgers said that Trumps efforts to fire or sideline multiple career DOJ officials sends a terrible message to the rest of the department. The president is not supposed to direct the activities of the Department of Justice, Rodgers said. The notion that he has policies and priorities that he wants the Justice Department to act on is not something that historically has been a thing at the Justice Department, right? Criminal cases are supposed to be brought based on evidence. They're supposed to be based on the law. They are not supposed to be based on the whims and the retribution desires of the president. This week, the president moved to clean house at the National Labour Relations Board, the agency responsible for investigating and adjudicating claims of violations of labour union law in the workplace. In addition to firing general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, a progressive labour watchdog who has protected workers from noncompete agreements and anti-union captive meetings Trump has also dismissed NLRB board member Gwynne Wilcox, one of two Democratic members at the agency. '''I will be pursuing all legal avenues to challenge my removal, which violates long-standing Supreme Court precedent''' The problem is that NLRB members cannot be dismissed at will. Federal law protects them through the duration of their term, except in cases of malfeasance, which the Trump administration has not provided any evidence of. However, this comes as some of Trumps business allies, particularly tech billionaire Elon Musk, have expressed interest in challenging the constitutionality of the protections for the NLRB. This is 100% illegal, wrote legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern . Its a new escalation in Trumps battle for absolute control over the administrative state. Federal law explicitly protects Wilcox against termination. That law is constitutional under binding Supreme Court precedent. The Purge Of The DEMON Continues... https://www.rawstory.com/media-libra...200&height=798 An UGLY streak in American politics |
TRUMP Appeals to SUPREME COURT on Firing Agency Boss & Another Court Denies Him
TRUMP Appeals to SUPREME COURT on Firing US Agency Boss
PLUS Divided Appeals Court Denies TRUMPs Attempt to Fire Watchdog BBC 17 FEB 2025 https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/N_...d602cf1de77487 Hampton Dellinger was fired in a one-sentence email this month https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standar...cce09551b6.jpg Donald Trump has asked the US Supreme Court to allow him to fire the head of an independent ethics agency that protects whistleblower federal employees. He has filed an emergency appeal to the countrys highest court to rule on whether he can fire Hampton Dellinger, head of the US Office of Special Counsel. It is thought to be the first case related to Trumps blizzard of executive actions to reach the highest court. Trump has also cut more than a dozen inspectors general at various federal agencies and fired thousands of employees across the US government. Mr Dellinger, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, sued the Trump administration after he was fired by email this month. He argued that his removal broke a law that says he can only be dismissed for poor job performance and that was not given as a reason in the email dismissing him. The agency lists among its primary objectives the protection of federal employees from unlawful actions in reprisal to whistleblowing, according to its mission statement. A federal judge in Washington DC issued a temporary order on Wednesday allowing Mr Dellinger to hold on to his position while the case is being considered. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the firing broke US law which tried to ensure the independence of the agency and protect it from political interference. On Saturday, a divided US Court of Appeals in the nations capital rejected the Trump administrations request to overrule the lower court. That has led to the justice department filing an emergency appeal to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, a filing seen by various US media. This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will, Sarah M Harris, acting solicitor general, wrote in the filing provided by the Department of Justice to the Washington Post. Appeals Court Denies TRUMPs Attempt to Fire Watchdog https://cdnph.upi.com/svc/sv/i/24617...e-watchdog.jpg Feb. 16 (UPI) -- A divided federal appeals court has denied President Donald Trump's request to fire a federal official from a post overseeing workplace protections for federal employees. The White House plans to appeal the 2-1 decision by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued late Saturday that affirmed a district court judges decision blocking the firing of Office of Special Counsel chief Hampton Dellinger, an appointee of President Joe Biden. I can and am continuing with my work as Special Counsel, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so, Dellinger said in a statement to Politico after the appeals court ruling. The Justice Department described the district courts ruling as an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers, according to a copy of the appeal Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an injunction to force the president to retain an agency head whom the president believes should not be entrusted with executive power and to prevent the president from relying on his preferred replacement. MORE; Legal showdown looms as Trump tests limits of presidential power Trump Insults ALL Federal Workers With Resign-or-Else Threatening '''Fork In The Road''' Email Glenn Kirschner FED Prosecutor 17 FEB 2025 https://www.tampafp.com/wp-content/u...Kirschner.jpeg Glenn Kirschner In this Justice Matters interview, Representative Jim Himes pulls no punches discussing the transgressions of the Trump administration; 1. Trumps demeaning fork in the road email to all federal employees, asserting that the dedicated federal public servants are low productivity employees. 2. The Trump administrations dangerous attempted decimation of the FBI. 3. The obvious unsuitability of Kash Patel to be Director of the FBI. 4. What We The People can do to remain engaged in the battle for a healthy American democracy. And more.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdolofHRZzE https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xe-zGtdoXBo/h...1fDDoKY8izdfLg . |
GOODBYE FREE America-Supreme Court Hands Trump HUGE Power Over Judges
GOODBYE FREE America - SHOCK Supreme Court Ruling Hands Trump Vast New Power
A HUGE Decision - Supreme Court Limits Ability of Judges to Stop Trump - Deathblow to Rule of LAW Supreme Court sets off alarm bells that its in the bag for Trump MSRAW 27 JUN 2025 https://www.rawstory.com/media-libra...200&height=800 https://www.rawstory.com/media-libra...200&height=666 Donald Trump said he will act very quickly to advance policies blocked by federal judges, including birthright citizenship restrictions, after the Supreme Court ruled in his favour against lower courts. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the court of hastening their demise by handing Donald Trump a huge victory Why It Matters The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision on Friday ruled that individual federal judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions, delivering a key victory to Trump The Court said lower courts should not issue nationwide injunctions which go beyond relief for individual plaintiffs on cases. Trump has frequently criticized lower court judges for blocking his policies on a broad scale. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzZL7BCUnmw Supreme Court Limits Power of Lower Courts to Stop Trumps Executive Orders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj_ZDMNC2Yc https://www.rawstory.com/media-libra...C172%2C0%2C172 |
Trump Has Supreme Court on Speed Dial & is Charging Asylum Seekers $100
Is This The WORST Trump Supreme Court Decision -Trump Has Supreme Court Justices on Speed Dial
The Supreme Court lifted an injunction that had protected immigrants from removal to dangerous countries where they could face torture and death Newsweek 6 JUL 2025 https://people.com/thmb/8dK-KBZEqdaF...c597517042.jpg In a dissent of a Supreme Court ruling, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said This order clarifies only one thing. Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.q...=Api&P=0&h=180 Justice Sotomayor made this statement in her dissent from the ruling allowing for migrants to be deported to countries they are not from. https://mr.cdn.ignitecdn.com/client_...jpg?1751393625 In her dissent, which she wrote with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, she said that this would result in the government deporting noncitizens to potentially dangerous countries without notice or the opportunity to assert a fear of torture Sotomayor and Jackson levied other criticisms at the Trump administration and the conservative-leaning court in their dissent, saying, The order not only excuses once again the Governments undisguised contempt for the Judiciary it also leaves the District Court without any guidance about how this litigation should proceed. https://dailycurator.com.ng/wp-conte...701-155415.jpg DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Tricia McLaughlin, spoke to Newsweek about the deportation of eight men to South Sudan, saying, These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day This Supreme Court contains three justices put on the bench by Donald Trump. Although not all have always ruled in his favor, several major decisions over the past month have supported the Trump agenda, including allowing for transgender service members to be temporarily barred from the military and blocking judges from issuing nationwide injunctions on birthright citizenship. In her dissent, Sotomayor accuses the justices of failing to serve in their roles as members of an independent branch of government. On July 3, the Supreme Court removed a district judges injunction blocking the government from deporting people to countries they are not from. TRUMP is Charging $100 Per Person Applying For Asylum in The U.S A total of 892,904 asylum applications were recorded in the U.S. in 2024. Trump To Make Millions Off Charging Asylum Seekers: What to Know Carnival of Corruption -Report Shows Trump Milks Presidency For MONEY For Badly Needed Bailout https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLZK_9jnCak Torture and Mistreatment Abrego Garcias Brutal Prison Experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI0bSrNjrkk Federal Judges Continue To Push Back, Rule Against & Reject Trumps Lawless Schemes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E99fWZdvKkE . |
Supreme Court SLUG Clarence Thomas Could UNDO Voting Rights Protections
Mysterious Order Could Give SLUG Clarence Thomas an Excuse to UNDO Voting Rights
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has long telegraphed his desire to gut crucial portions of the Voting Rights Act, and he might finally get a chance to undermine protections ensuring equal rights for Black and Hispanic voters MSRAW 12 JUL 2025 https://www.rawstory.com/media-libra...200&height=800 Thomas first laid out his objections to those protections in 1994, when only the late Antonin Scalia signaled a willingness to go along with him https://i.imgur.com/hafXTQz.jpg Trump has since packed the court with fellow right wing ideologues, and a new case could give him a pretext to achieve his longtime goal Now, a mysterious order from the high court in a Louisiana redistricting case suggests it is seriously reconsidering the scope of VRA safeguards against congressional and state legislative district maps that dilute minority votes. The looming battle comes as some states, notably Alabama, are resisting court orders to remedy discrimination, and Trumps Justice Department is abandoning the federal governments usual role in protecting minority voting rights. The court will reconsider a case in October involving a U.S. district court ruling on Louisianas congressional map that created two Black majority districts but protected the states favoured incumbents, including House speaker Mike Johnson, and Thomas wrote a six page dissenting statement after justices heard arguments on 27 June but were unable to reach an agreement. I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its Section 2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore, Thomas wrote. No other justices signed on to his dissent, but justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett have all signaled support for his views once deemed radical by his colleagues on a race neutral approach to voting rights, and chief justice John Roberts and justice Brett Kavanaugh have also appeared willing to strike down those protections. During March oral arguments in the Louisiana case, Roberts was skeptical of the states new map with two Black majority districts, which were created after a lower court found the original map with a single Black majority district likely violated Section 2. Roberts questioned whether one of the new districts was sufficiently compact to meet standards; he called it a snake that runs from one end of the state to the other Gorsuch agreed and even went further, saying that any consideration of race in redrawing a discriminatory map would violate the 14th Amendments guarantee of equal protection, and Kavanaugh questioned the authority of states to do so. https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/author...pjpg&auto=webp |
Clarence Thomas Clerk WARNS Supreme Court Expansion of Trump Power Over FED Agencies
Bombshell! Ex Clerk to Clarence Thomas Sends Shockwaves With Supreme Court WARNING
Former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas has issued detailed warning about the Supreme Courts accelerating push to expand presidential power over federal agencies, coinciding with active cases that could overturn decades of precedent. MSRAW 14 OCT 2025 https://www.rawstory.com/media-libra...200&height=699 The U.S. Supreme Court seems almost certain to side with Donald Trump in an upcoming challenge to his authority to fire government officials for any reason, but a leading conservative legal scholar sent a warning that could give the justices pause. University of Virginia law professor Caleb Nelson, a leading originalist scholar whose work has been cited by all of the courts conservative members in more than a dozen opinions, published an article Sept. 29 for the Democracy Project that has sent shockwaves through the legal community, reported the New York Times. Bombshell posted University of Chicago law professor William Baude on social media. Caleb Nelson, one of the most respected originalist scholars in the country, comes out against the unitary executive interpretation of the Constitution. Nelson, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that the text of the Constitution and historical evidence shows Congress has broad authority to shape the executive branch and place limits on the presidents ability to fire officials. If most of what the federal government currently does on a daily basis is executive, and if the President must have full control over each and every exercise of executive power by the federal government including an unlimitable ability to remove all or almost all executive officers for reasons good or bad, then the President has an enormous amount of power more power, I think, than any sensible person should want anyone to have, and more power than any member of the founding generation could have anticipated, Nelson wrote. I am an originalist, and if the original meaning of the Constitution compelled this outcome, Nelson added, I would be inclined to agree that the Supreme Court should respect it until the Constitution is amended through the proper processes. The textual and historical evidence for limiting the presidents power to fire executive officials is much stronger than the justices have suggested, he argued. In the face of such ambiguities, I hope that the justices will not act as if their hands are tied, Nelson wrote. If a highly respected originalist scholar like Professor Nelson, on whom the court relies frequently, denies that originalism supports the unitary executive theory, Professor Pildes said, that inevitably raises serious questions about an originalist justification for the courts looming approach. However, Chief Justice John Roberts has spent his entire career on the bench advancing the unitary executive theory and chipping away at the 1935 precedent of Humphreys Executor v. United States, which found that Congress could place limits on the presidents power to fire people. Since 1789, the Constitution has been understood to empower the president to keep these officers accountable by removing them from office, if necessary, Roberts wrote in 2010. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:19. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2