Posted on 08/18/2022 6:39:43 AM PDT by SJackson
Under pressure from President Biden to find a way to prevent Donald Trump from becoming America’s 47th President of the United States, Attorney General Merrick Garland unleashed an army of FBI agents to scour Mar-a-Lago in search of something, anything that might fill in the enormous gap in DOJ’s case against the former president: The glaring absence of evidence of specific intent needed to bring any charge against former President Trump.
While DOJ can snow a grand jury into believing lame evidence credible and succeed in indicting just about anyone (not difficult when the prosecution runs the show unopposed), it cannot be sure of a conviction from a court without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of the specific intent necessary to prove its case. That evidence rarely exists and proof of it is, indeed, a very tall order. Short of planting evidence or making things up (in other words committing the kind of government corruption and fraud as occurred in the deceitful manipulation of evidence by DOJ and FBI in support of the Russia hoax or, more recently, in the FBI fabricated Whitmer kidnapping plot), DOJ is destined to hit a very high, virtually impenetrable burden of proof that will dash its partisan dreams to pieces.
From the warrant released by Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhardt on August 12, we see in attachment B the legal predicate offered by Justice for the search: 18 USC §§ 793, 1519, and 2071. For want of evidence, each statutory section fails in Trump’s case when evaluated fairly, and never should have been accepted as adequate justification under the Fourth Amendment for the unprecedented issuance of the warrant against a former President on the eve of his announcement of a second candidacy for that office. That want of evidence, of course, did not stop DOJ because the entire unprecedented pursuit is one driven by political motivations, not objectivity. DOJ is not investigating a crime for which it has probable cause; it is trying to discover fragments of proof that can be woven into a tale of criminality to, at a minimum, place a cloud over candidate Trump’s head or, in their ideal scenario, justify preventing him from becoming the 47th President of the United States.
Section 793 is a section of the Espionage Act which prohibits removal and misuse of defense information when done by one “with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” DOJ scoured Mar-a-Lago through use of an ex parte warrant in a desperate attempt to find some scrap of evidence to shore up an otherwise inadequate case under this section. This now explains why they even went to the extreme of going through Melania’s dresses and the Trump bedroom. The aim was to find something, anything to support an “intent or reason to believe that . . . information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” DOJ was engaged in a massive KGB-style fishing expedition, angling to find fragments that could be woven together through a mighty stretch to make out an Espionage case against former President Trump (it's Russia, Russia, Russia all over again).
They are struggling at this very moment to come up with some kind of plausible story line suggestive of the needed criminal intent, a story line of fiction detached from reality. Make out Trump to be a spy for a foreign power or to be endeavoring to harm the United States and you will obtain an indictment, but winning a trial on the merits, where all relevant countervailing evidence (not just the DOJ story line) is before a judge and jury, and conviction appears an illusory goal. Obtaining a conviction for a specific intent crime is an extremely difficult mountain to climb in the absence of a confession or direct and irrefutable testimony and a case, to quote the discredited former FBI Director James Comey, no reasonable prosecutor would bring.
Section 1519 likewise requires DOJ to prove specific intent. It must show from direct evidence or testimony that Donald Trump intentionally endeavored to impede or obstruct an investigation by covering up or destroying records. The section reads: “Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or . . . in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” Proving a violation of this section is all but impossible in the absence of direct evidence or a confession of specific intent. Who but a far-left lunatic thinks a conviction under this section likely against the former President?
Section 2071 does not even apply to the President of the United States. This section applies to documents that are “filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States.” The documents at issue were not ones filed or deposited with the Office of the President under the plain meaning of the section. They were documents reviewed and used by the President in the development of executive decision-making under his Article II authority. But even if we omit that bar to prosecution, and the legislative history which makes it plain that the section was not intended to apply to the President, we have again the extraordinary burden of proving specific intent. The section requires proof that Trump “willfully” concealed, removed, mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed, or attempted to destroy a protected document. Despite its facial inapplicability, section 2071 is the one DOJ is determined to apply to the President, however, because the section includes within it the political end-game: Violation carries with it not only the potential for imprisonment for up to three years but also disqualification “from holding any office under the United States.”
In the end, remember DOJ never made Hillary Clinton account for the overwhelming proof of her violation of the Espionage Act through her willful transfer of classified emails from the state department to her private server, her destruction of mass quantities of that evidence during the course of the FBI investigation (bleach bit software and hammers), and her overt obstruction of FBI’s investigation into that evidence. Compared to the mountain of evidence DOJ had on Hillary and did nothing, DOJ has nothing at all on Trump. Comey announced to a shocked legal world in flagrant disregard of the proof that would undo Clinton that “although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” And then there is oh so much evidence of criminality by Hunter Biden and of violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by President Biden (indeed direct evidence of complicity with foreign powers to the personal financial advantage of the Biden family through a multi-year, multi-million-dollar influence peddling scheme with America’s greatest enemies), but DOJ does nothing; indeed appears to have buried the evidence (where is the Hunter lap top FBI seized?).
American justice is not whatever those in power proclaim it to be in service of one political party. That form of justice can be had in any of a number of tyrannical states worldwide, Putin’s, Xi Jinping’s, Jong-un’s, Khamenei’s, Diaz-Canel’s, or Maduro’s, but it is the opposite of equal justice under law at the root of American jurisprudence, where an objective rule of law applies to all. While Attorney General Merrick Garland gives lip service to equal justice, he epitomizes through his actions the politicization of justice, zealously going after party opponents for whom evidence is lacking while taking no action whatsoever against Democrats for whom evidence of criminality is manifest. Impeachment of Garland is not an option if we are to restore the rule of law and blind justice; it is a necessity.
Trump clearly “intends” to become president in 2024, so that’s good enough for a prison term right there.
If there was any evidence it would have been leaked already. The FBI was scooping up boxes in the hope they could find the ones containing evidence against themselves and the swamp rats. DJT has those safe.
If I were a judge, I would doubt the authenticity of everything in those boxes. President Trump’s enemies had them in their possession for quite some time. If they can slip millions of banana ballots in the boxes at the polls all over America on election night, I wouldn’t be surprised if they threw in a couple thousand democrat mail in Banana Ballots for good luck and to accuse President Trump of stealing their banana ballots.
Revenge is sweet, isn’t it Merry?
If they do this, they will do the same to DeSantis.
If Trump prevails, then Obama, Clinton, and Biden will be jailed. That is the DOJ’s justification for being lawless.
These Aholes are going to indict Trump. You know it’s coming. Get ready.
I think you're right though they'll find something to leak in the next week or two
FIRST THERE WAS "THE PLAN"
Some judges would relly on the sterling reputation of law enforcement. These aren't local LEOs arresting looters after all.
Because this is easier to defend that just assassinating him. Which I fear is the next step should/(when) this falls flat as well.
Despite a laundry list of felonies the fbi declared hellary had no intent to be a lying crook…but I’m confident their ‘intent detector’ is working better now…’no one is above the law’…bahahahahaha
“Because this is easier to defend that just assassinating him. “
It also sends a message to any politician or citizen who stands tall against the left. We will us the full power of the justice system against you. For those who are not billionaires like Trump, the prospect is years of litigation and economic ruin hiring expensive lawyers.
The left weaponizing the legal system has made elected public service unaffordable for the average citizen. Remember Sarah Palin resigned from being governor of Alaska because of the volume of frivolous lawsuits being filed against her as punishment for running for vice president and being a power voice for conservative principles. Trump dealt with many civil lawsuits as candidate president - remember Stormy Daniels, Trump University, and others? He could afford the personal legal fees but a DeSantis will not have the resources to defend himself from hundreds of frivolous lawsuits.
At one time these lawsuits would have been thrown out by the same judges who often reject conservative lawsuits as having “no standing”. Today leftist judges are openly hostile to conservatives. Note the public statements of bias of leftist judges in the January 6 defendant trials. The same prosecutors and judges who give BLM and Antifa criminals a pass are throwing the book at people who trespassed with glee.
banana ballots
i love it
i have been calling biden joey bananas
it works in so many ways
they have privileged documents which they promised to return in 2 weeks
will never see a courtroom but there will be leakage
I would add assistant Democrats to the list of those opposing President Trump. That would include the Bush and Cheney clan.
Two weeks. If they know they’re privileged, they’ve already had a quick look and should return them in 2 hours. They’ve no business with them. But need copying time.
Then we’ll just elect him anyway and he can pardon himself from his prison cell and walk right out.
“These Aholes are going to indict Trump.”
I used to believe that 100%. Now it’s down to 75%. Maybe they would’ve held on to his passports when they had them.
Who knows what evil...?
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.