Posted on 08/05/2023 10:44:08 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
What do you do when you have a political crime, but not a legal one? You keep trying to attach laws to what you consider a political crime. As I already noted in my analysis, Clinton ally Jack Smith took random unrelated laws and then waved his arms a lot while talking about democracy.
Describing publicly conducted election challenges as an effort to “defraud” the United States government turns 18 U.S. Code § 371 into an open-ended tool for suppressing a wide range of political dissent. Treating lobbying or any kind of advocacy as the equivalent of witness tampering weaponizes 18 U.S. Code § 1512 against virtually anyone trying to influence a function of government. Which is to say virtually everyone who is interested in politics. And finally deploying 18 U.S. Code § 241, originally designed to fight the KKK, against Trump and anyone trying to verify legitimate election results makes election fraud into a civil right.
Instead of finding specific crimes committed, Jack Smith took the House Democrat J6 Committee report and then did his best to fit them into some federal statutes somewhere. Including one that bans wearing disguises on highways which was created to fight the KKK.
The New York Times has to be polite and supportive so it describes Smith’s tactics as “novel”.
(Note to non-lawyers, prosecutors using novel tactics is rarely a good thing for the targets, the prosecutors or the country. Laws are supposed to be reasonably straightforward and so are prosecutions. A country where prosecutors are constantly figuring out how do novel things either has bad laws or is a totalitarian regime.)
In accusing former President Donald J. Trump of conspiring to subvert American democracy, the special counsel, Jack Smith, charged the same story three different ways. The charges are...
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Dershowitz: Jack Smith Could be Indicted for Fraud for Omitting Trump’s ‘Peaceful’ Statement
Breitbart ^ | 4 Aug 2023 | JOEL B. POLLAK
Posted on 8/5/2023, 12:53:49 PM by SoConPubbie
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says that under his own “fraud” standard, Special Counsel Jack Smith could be indicted for omitting a key portion of then-President Donald Trump’s speech in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021.
The indictment charges Trump with four counts, including “conspiracy to defraud the United States.” But in a portion recounting Trump’s speech at the “Stop the Steal” rally, Smith repeats the errors made by House Democrats in Trump’s second impeachment trial: he focuses on Trump’s use of the phrase “fight like hell,” and omits a sentence highlighted by Trump’s defense team: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
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.
Trump’s defense team returned, again and again, to the fact that Trump told his supporters to rally “peacefully” at the Capitol, which was ultimately a major reason he was able to defeat the House impeachment charge of incitement.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I respect Dershowitz but his statement is an impractical distraction. It’s common in both civil and criminal law to “plead in the alternative,” that is to plead each theory that is supported under the facts. But the crux of this case is that Trump’s alleged actions, even if true, arent actionable because of the First Amendment
Their goal isn’t conviction, it is prevention (of a Trump second term). Political Lawfare.
.
This notion of charging a “story” three different ways is common. I’m seeing a lot of this with crimes associated with non-political people, not just special cases. The more I understand the lower my opinion goes. Having multiple felony charges almost guarantees a plea deal when a person doesn’t have the resources to fight government. That’s most people. You can’t count on a public defender. They are either overloaded, incompetent or both. Layer all of that on the fact that DA’s are political, not necessarily targeting the opposition, but will do anything to rack up convictions solely for the purposes of running in the next election.
yeah we all know the leftists beloved turd wont be charged with anything..still waiting for the ENTIRE biden crime family to be charged with ANYTHING which will never happen either
Daniel Greenfield ping
You have to take something before a judge that will convict no matter what
He heard “third time’s the charm.”
You have learned well grasshopper.
We don’t have a “justice” system, we have a “legal” system and it is entirely corrupt, especially on the gubmint side. Judges don’t allow private attorneys to get away with shit that gubmint lawyers pull regularly.
What’s so bothersome to me is that I was always so pro-government. There isn’t a scintilla of that in me now.
Liberals are trying to argue that attempting to get the courts to stop the certification of the election so there would be more time to investigate was an attempted INSURRECTION.
ROFL
Requiring someone to obtain a search warrant is = to obstruction of justice also
This whole thing is a farce.
yes
I remember watching Leonard Kerpelman plea in opposition to prayer in school case in a court in Baltimore. His objections were so rapid fire and on target he shut down the state’s ability to present its case.
I worked in the Baltimore Dept of Welfare alongside his father who was a genteel man of dignity and patience. not at all like his son who was a mad dog in court.
Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s son, William Murray III, who was the plaintiff. Later, William Murray became a Christian evangelist and an advocate of restoring prayer to public schools.
Just a curious bit from my past.
Man bites dog. It’s not news that Smith is doing this. It’s just news that the NY Times is calling him out for doing this. Somebody’s had enough.
The Al Capone tax case wasn’t as absurdly corrupt and abusive as in The Untouchables, but it was obviously corrupt and, for once, not by Capone. The presumption was that Capone had skipped justice too many times and that he was a public menace, all true, and that he had to be locked up no matter what.
That’s the reasoning behind supporting the otherwise nightmarish premises that Jack Smith sets out. Democrats are assuming that they won’t be used against them or much of anyone except maybe Trump, some ‘right-wingers’ and then it’ll stop.
Just like it did in the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Revolutionary France.
Al Capone, Jack (Daniels) Smith and Trump! Yes, the esteemed Daniel Greenfield has hit another home run!
Well worth your time to click over and read,
Ping out to the Daniel Greenfield Ping! List.
As always, please FReepmail me if you want on or off the esteemed Daniel Greenfield ping list.
Daniel Greenfield's website: The Sultan Knish blog
p
“The more I understand the lower my opinion goes. Having multiple felony charges almost guarantees a plea deal when a person doesn’t have the resources to fight government. That’s most people. “
Exactly right. I would add that even if the defendant has the case go through the average jury (leaving his attorney’s preparation and abilities aside), the more charges the DA brings in, the increased probability that the defendant will be found guilty of something b/c ...there is an unconscious bias built into the average human that (1) the state would not bring the case if there wasn’t any crime committed by the person.
Maybe what non-demonkkraps need to do today is bring their “own biases” (actually recognized reality) that if the DA is a demonkkrap, everything the state brings forth is false and a lie. If the FIB comes in as a witness to the case ... all that evidence is false. Unless the defendant gets on the stand and admits to his guilt, vote not guilty.
The Duke lacrosse case is an extreme case because the defendants had fire power to fight and uncover the DA’s corruption. Most people can’t, so it is up to the informed individual jurors to help statt correcting this problem. The left has done this for years .... with death penalty cases and even in the George Floyd case - it doesn’t matter what the evidence shows, they will decide something else. Those are the new rules, now play them against the demonkkraps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.