Posted on 05/09/2019 4:21:17 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
Today’s Campaign Update (Because The Campaign Never Ends) Strategery, Democrat style. – So, first you create a Constitutional crisis by taking a vote of the House Judiciary Committee to hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt over an absurd claim that he “lied” to the Committee a month ago (he didn’t), and that he won’t release a full, unredacted version of the Mueller Report to congress so the Democrats can leak parts of it to their pals at the New York Times (he can’t do that without committing a felony himself).
After you’ve done that, you send Jabba the Nadler out to tell the breathless, fawning fake news media that the country is in a Constitutional crisis:
(Excerpt) Read more at dbdailyupdate.com ...
The Rubicon. Cross it.
Ignore them. The WH is.
“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
In addition to being vindictive, deranged, evil and stupid, the RATS are also laughingly egotistic.
When Pelosi became Speaker again, she was clearly under the impression that she, Queen Nancy, was now both more powerful and more important than the President - well, until some dim-witted, bug-eyed bartender started drawing all the media attention. Now Pelosi just smirks, cries “it’s not over” (just like Hillary cries: “The election was stolen!”).
Nadler is cut from the same cloth - except his his case, I guess, there’s a lot more cloth to cut. This fat dope actually thinks he’s important. REALLY important. You know, because he runs a committee in a Congress full of retarded, corrupt scumbags. Trump does well by simply ignoring the asshole.
One final reminder: The Democrats and their media toadies are desperate to smear Barr in the public consciousness because Barr has repeatedly promised to get to the bottom of the Obama Administration’s massive spying activities targeted at the Trump Campaign throughout 2016. They all know that if he succeeds in that quest, people are going to prison.
...
The Democrats are obstructing justice.
Meanwhile that a-hole Wray stated there was no spying. Who recommended that Rat mole?
That's on top of lying, murdering Demonicrats giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Please don’t fall for Fake News from our enemies.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?460435-1/fbi-director-wray-word-spying-describe-surveillance&start=268
Wray was answering a general question, but that’s not how our enemies are portraying it. Sorry for the Caps.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH DIRECTOR WRAY FOR BEING HERE THIS MORNING. I’D LIKE TO FOLLOW-UP ON SENATOR MORAN’S QUESTION ABOUT THE HEARING WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL BAR. I WAS VERY CONCERNED BY HIS USE OF THE WORD SPYING, WHICH I THINK IS A LOADED WORD. IT CONJURES A CRIMINAL CONNOTATION. I WANT TO ASK YOU — I’D APPRECIATE A YES OR NO ANSWER IF POSSIBLE. WHEN FBI AGENTS CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS AGAINST ALLEGED MOBSTERS, SUSPECTED TERRORISTS, OTHER CRIMINALS, DO YOU BELIEVE THEY’RE ENGAGING IN SPYING WHEN THEY’RE FOLLOWING FBI INVESTIGATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES?
THAT’S NOT THE TERM I WOULD USE.
Here’s an idea for Barr.....
Charge Nadler with a crime. Nadler and the democrats on the committee who voted to charge the AG with contempt of congress. The crime being trying to force the AG to commit a crime. Nadler wants the AG to commit the felony of disclosing grand jury testimony. If that isn’t at least aiding and abetting, or conspiracy to commit a crime, then, what is?
J Jordan pointed out that Nadler hadn’t gone to see the unexpected report. Why not
I pointed out at the very beginning that he had connections to comey and Mueller.
He was part of the revolt that happened with ashcroft in the hospital.
Or let’s go the other way. Since spying on candidates is no big deal now then let the DOJ/FBI start spying on all 20 Dem candidates. Let’s set them up and get the to “collude” with phantom Russians. I will help with the fake dossiers.
Naldler heard that there were no donnuts and coffee in the skiff room with the report.
I found my previous post and post it again:
How many times have we heard someone say, “He was found not guilty but in my mind he was guilty as sin!” Such is lawless thinking, where in our system of justice, a man is innocent until proven guilty. It is this lawlessness that seeks to find a crime to prove a man guilty even when no crime is known. The Democrats are trying to find a crime. They are trying to sabotage our criminal justice system. It is that criminal justice system that caused men to write, in the case of Coffin vs The United States (1898):
“The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”
And, in this case, the prosecution of the Mueller investigation has proven that there was “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a “reasonable person” that there was no reason to find President Trump guilty.
The Democrats are trying to subvert our system of justice. It is the same subversion that caused men to write:
“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government . . .”
As Watergate Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski wrote,
“However, for The Watergate Special Prosecution Force to make public the evidence it gathered concerning the former President and others who were not charged with criminal offenses would be to add another abuse of power to those that led to creation of a Special Prosecutor’s office. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibit the disclosure of information presented to a grand jury except as necessary in the course of criminal proceedings. The American Bar Association reinforces this stricture in its Code of Professional Responsibility and limits the circumstances under which attorneys involved in criminal investigations are free to make out-of-court statements about the details of their work.
Most important, in terms of the American constitutional system of government, is the notion of fundamental fairness for those who, after investigation, have not been charged with any criminal misconduct. This consideration is particularly important for a Special Prosecutor whose independence considerably reduces his accountability and who must be unusually sensitive to possible abuses of his power. It is a basic axiom of our system of justice that every man is innocent unless proven guilty after judicial proceedings designed to protect his rights and to ensure a fair adjudication of the charges against him. Where no such charges are brought, it would be irresponsible and unethical for a prosecutor to issue a report suggesting criminal conduct on the part of an individual who has no effective means of challenging the allegations against him or of requiring the prosecutor to establish such charges beyond a reasonable doubt.”
-—The Watergate Special Prosecution Force Report
Alea iacta est.
All you need to know about Nadler is he is pro-pedophilia, he was one of just 25 (along with Barney Frank, Waters, Cummings, Sanders, etc) who voted against the Protect Act in 2003.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll127.xml
Eventus Stultorum Magister
(For the congress)
Barr needs to pick the 10-12 physically largest and strongest Federal Marshalls and have them surround him anytime he goes outside of his home or the DOJ. Do not give the House Sergeant at Arms a chance to arrest him. Just present an immovable blockade and frustrate the poor guy.
Barr could also order that the Marshalls display automatic weapons (MAC-11’s) or similar weapons when moving from place to place.
Trump could order the USSS to protect Barr as well.
Extortion
The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
Under the Common Law, extortion is a misdemeanor consisting of an unlawful taking of money by a government officer. It is an oppressive misuse of the power with which the law clothes a public officer.Most jurisdictions have statutes governing extortion that broaden the common-law definition. Under such statutes, any person who takes money or property from another by means of illegal compulsion may be guilty of the offense. When used in this sense, extortion is synonymous with blackmail, which is extortion by a private person. In addition, under some statutes a corporation may be liable for extortion.
Elements of Offense
Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim’s friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim’s spouse that the victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another.
Other types of threats sufficient to constitute extortion include those to harm the victim’s business and those to either testify against the victim or withhold testimony necessary to his or her defense or claim in an administrative proceeding or a lawsuit. Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion.
Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion. Statutes may contain words such as “willful” or “purposeful” in order to indicate the intent element. When this is so, someone who mistakenly believes he or she is entitled to the money or property cannot be guilty of extortion. Some statutes, however, provide that any unauthorized taking of money by an officer constitutes extortion. Under these statutes, a person may be held strictly liable for the act, and an intent need not be proven to establish the crime.
Statutes governing extortion by private persons vary in content. Many hold that a threat accompanied by the intent to acquire the victim’s property is sufficient to establish the crime; others require that the property must actually be acquired as a result of the threat. Extortion by officials is treated similarly. Some statutes hold that the crime occurs when there is a meeting of the minds between the officer and the party from whom the money is exacted.
Extortion by Public Officers
The essence of extortion by a public officer is the oppressive use of official position to obtain a fee. The officer falsely claims authority to take that to which he or she is not lawfully entitled. This is known as acting under color of office. For example, a highway department officer who collects money from a tax delinquent automobile owner in excess of the authorized amount on the pretense of collecting a fine is extorting money under color of office. The victim, although consenting to payment, is not doing so voluntarily but is yielding to official authority.
There are four basic ways in which a public officer commits extortion. The officer might demand a fee not allowed by law and accept it under the guise of performing an official duty. He or she might take a fee greater than that allowed by law. In this case the victim must at least believe that he or she is under an obligation to pay some amount. A third method is for the officer to receive a fee before it is due. The crime is committed regardless of whether the sum taken is likely to become due in the future. It is not criminal, however, for an officer to collect a fee before it is due if the person paying so requests. Finally, extortion may be committed by the officer’s taking a fee for services that are not performed. The service refrained from must be one within the official capacity of the officer in order to constitute extortion.
Other Crimes Distinguished
As a crime of theft, extortion is closely related to Robbery and False Pretenses.
Robbery differs from extortion in that the property is taken against the will and without the consent of the victim, unlike extortion, where the victim consents, although unwillingly, to surrender money or property. Another distinguishing factor is that the nature of the threat for robbery is limited to immediate physical harm to the victim or his or her home. Extortion, on the other hand, encompasses a greater variety of threats.
False pretenses is another crime that is similar to extortion. The main difference is that in the case of false pretenses, the property is obtained by a lie rather than a threat.
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.