Archive for the ‘Judges’ Category

JUST HOW FAR WILL THE LEFT GO ? VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Wednesday, July 25th, 2018

 

Just How Far Will the Left Go?

By Victor Davis Hanson| July 23rd, 2018

There was no honeymoon for the unlikely winner of the 2016 election. Progressives have in succession tried to sue to overturn Trump’s victory using several different approaches. First on the bogus claim of fraudulent voting machines. Then they sought to subvert the Electoral College by bullying electors into renouncing their respective states’ votes.

Massive protests and boycotts marked the inauguration. Then there were articles of impeachment introduced in the House. Some sued to remove Trump on a warped interpretation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Others brought in psychiatrists to testify that Trump was ill, disabled, or insane and should be removed in accordance with the 25th Amendment. The former FBI director, CIA director, and director of the Office of National Intelligence have variously smeared the president as a coward, a traitor, and a Russian mole.

The Mueller Investigation
We are about 430 days into Robert Mueller’s investigation; the special prosecutor whose team of lawyers and investigators has in a large part been made up either of Clinton donors, clear Clinton partisans, lawyers who have in the past represented Clinton interests or employees, or partisans already removed for expressing clear Trump hatred. The media grew ecstatic over its creation, dubbing it an “all-star” or “dream” team, as leaks assured the public that next week, next month, or “soon” there would be a sensational indictment proving that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the presidency.

We have gone through the psychodramas surrounding Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and a host of others. Any second, any minute they would be indicted for collusion in throwing an election, or they would soon flip and end the Trump presidency.

 

When we learned that Robert Mueller initially did not disclose to the media why he had fired Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and why he had spaced out their firings to prevent the impression that they were connected, we were only reassured of the professionalism of the Mueller investigation.

(more…)

Share

FIVE THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT KAVANAUGH

Tuesday, July 10th, 2018

 

5 Things to Know About Trump’s Supreme Court Pick, Brett Kavanaugh

Share

PAUL MANAFORT IN SOLIDARY CONFINEMENT 23 HOURS A DAY

Sunday, July 8th, 2018

 

Paul Manafort spends 23 hours a day in solitary confinement

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort spends at least 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, according to a new court filing.
Attorneys for Manafort made the claim Thursday in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, where they are appealing a federal judge’s decision to jail their client. The 69-year-old is currently at the Northern Neck Region Jail, a roughly two hours’ drive south of Washington.
“Mr. Manafort, moreover, is now housed in solitary confinement because the facility cannot otherwise guarantee his safety. He is locked in his cell for at least 23 hours per day (excluding visits from his attorneys), at a facility approximately two hours from his legal team,” his lawyers wrote.
Manafort is facing two federal criminal trials: one set to begin July 25 in Virginia and the other set to begin September 17 in Washington, and he has pleaded not guilty in both. He faces a handful of charges including bank and tax fraud and failure to register as a foreign agent in both districts stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Share

NEW BOOK – RECLAIMING THE REPUBLIC

Thursday, June 21st, 2018

 

 

New Book – “Reclaiming the Republic” by Bob Marshall former conservative member of Virginia legislature

dailyhaymaker.com/?p=20393&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailyhaymaker%2FgjBo+%28The+Daily+Haymaker+%3A+A+Carolina-Flavored+Dose+of+Common+Sense+Conservativism%29

New book offers guide on standing up to the leftist hordes

If you’re a political junkie, you may remember former Virginia House of Delegates member Bob Marshall.  In 2017, his 28-year career in the state legislature was ended by  a transgender Democrat backed by $1.2 million in out-of-state money and an army of out-of-state left-wing activists.

Marshall had been in a  safe GOP seat.  His $300,000 campaign treasury was typically enough to get him into the victory circle on election night.  Not THIS time, though.

The leftist slander machine came after Marshall full-force.  In his book, he recalls seeing 20 activists from the Human Rights Campaign and SIX Planned Parenthood activists on one day in one precinct of his district campaigning for his opponent.

He was a diehard conservative who had dared to poke the leftist hordes.  They were going to swamp him with a  tidal wave and make him pay.

Marshall is a renowned social conservative who also happens to be an alum of North Carolina’s Belmont Abbey College.  In addition to his time in the Virginia legislature, he spent years as an advisor to conservative warrior and former US Rep. Bob Dornan (R-CA).  Yes, believe it or  not, California used to actually send conservatives to Washington.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO JUDGE JEANINE – THE IG REPORT

Sunday, June 17th, 2018

 

VIDEO  – JUDGE JEANINE  – OPENING STATEMENT   JUNE 16, 2018   THE  IG REPORT –  THE DEEP STATE IS ALIVE AND WELL AND HAS VERY DEEP TENTACLES
Share

CLIMATE ALARMISTS MAY INHERIT THE WIND

Wednesday, April 4th, 2018

 

 

www.wsj.com/articles/climate-alarmists-may-inherit-the-wind-1522605526?mod=ITP_opinion_0&tesla=y THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Climate Alarmists May Inherit the Wind

View this email in your browser
Climate Alarmists May Inherit the Wind

They likened a courtroom ‘tutorial’ to the Scopes Monkey Trial. But their side got schooled.

By Phelim McAleer   Mr. McAleer is a journalist, playwright and filmmaker. He is currently writing a play about Chevron Corp.’s legal fight over alleged pollution in Ecuador.      April 2, 2018

San Francisco

Five American oil companies find themselves in a San Francisco courtroom. California v. Chevron is a civil action brought by the city attorneys of San Francisco and Oakland, who accuse the defendants of creating a “public nuisance” by contributing to climate change and of conspiring to cover it up so they could continue to profit.No trial date has been set, but on March 21 the litigants gathered for a “climate change tutorial” ordered by Judge William Alsup—a prospect that thrilled climate-change alarmists. Excited spectators gathered outside the courtroom at 6 a.m., urged on by advocates such as the website Grist, which declared “Buckle up, polluters! You’re in for it now,” and likened the proceeding to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial.

In the event, the hearing did not go well for the plainti s—and not for lack of legal talent. Steve W. Berman, who represented the cities, is a star trial lawyer who has made a career and a fortune suing corporations for large settlements, including the $200 billion-plus tobacco settlement in 1998.

“Until now, fossil fuel companies have been able to talk about climate science in political and media arenas where there is far less accountability to the truth,” Michael Burger of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University told Grist. The hearing

did mark a shift toward accountability—but perhaps not in the way activists would have liked.

Judge Alsup started quietly. He flattered the plaintif s’ first witness, Oxford physicist Myles Allen, by calling him a “genius,” but he also reprimanded Mr. Allen for using a misleading illustration to represent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a graph ostensibly about temperature rise that did not actually show rising temperatures.

Then the pointed questions began. Gary Griggs, an oceanographer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, struggled with the judge’s simple query: “What do you think caused the last Ice Age?”

The professor talked at length about a wobble in the earth’s orbit and went on to describe a period “before there were humans on the planet,” which “we call hothouse Earth.” That was when “all the ice melted. We had fossils of palm trees and alligators in the Arctic,” Mr. Griggs told the court. He added that at one time the sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today.

Mr. Griggs then recounted “a period called ‘snow ballers,’ ” when scientists “think the entire Earth was frozen due to changes in things like methane released from the ocean.”

Bear in mind these accounts of two apocalyptic climate events that occurred naturally came from a witness for plaintif s looking to prove American oil companies are responsible for small changes in present-day climate.

The defendants’ lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., emphasized the little-discussed but huge uncertainties in reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the failure of worst-case climate models to pan out in reality. Or as Judge Alsup put it: “Instead of doom and gloom, it’s just gloom.”

Mr. Boutrous also noted that the city of San Francisco—in court claiming that rising sea levels imperil its future—recently issued a 20-year bond, whose prospectus asserted the city was “unable to predict whether sea level rise or other impacts of climate change or

flooding from a major storm will occur.”

Judge Alsup was particularly scathing about the conspiracy claim. The plaintif alleged that the oil companies were in possession of “smoking gun” documents that would prove their liability; Mr. Boutrous said this was simply an internal summary of the publicly available 1995 IPCC report.

The judge said he read the lawsuit’s allegations to mean “that there was a conspiratorial document within the defendants about how they knew good and well that global warming was right around the corner. And I said: ‘OK, that’s going to be a big thing. I want to see it.’ Well, it turned out it wasn’t quite that. What it was, was a slide show that somebody had gone to the IPCC and was reporting on what the IPCC had reported, and that was it. Nothing more. So they were on notice of what in IPCC said from that document, but it’s hard to say that they were secretly aware. By that point they knew. Everybody knew everything in the IPCC,” he stated.

Judge Alsup then turned to Mr. Berman: “If you want to respond, I’ll let you respond. . . . Anything you want to say?”“No,” said the counsel to the plaintif . Whereupon Judge Alsup adjourned the proceedings.

Until now, environmentalists and friendly academics have found a receptive audience in journalists and politicians who don’t understand science and are happy to defer to experts. Perhaps this is why the plainti s seemed so ill-prepared for their first court outings with tough questions from an informed and inquisitive judge.

Activists have long claimed they want their day in court so that the truth can be revealed. Given last week’s poor performance, they may be the ones who inherit the wind.

Mr. McAleer is a journalist, playwright and filmmaker. He is currently writing a play about Chevron Corp.’s legal fight over alleged pollution in Ecuador.

(more…)

Share

JUDGE DISALLOWS REFERENCES TO CAIR-HAMAS TIES IN LAWSUIT

Thursday, February 15th, 2018

 

CLARION PROJECT

Judge Disallows References to CAIR-Hamas Ties in Suit

In a dangerous and bizarre precedent, a federal judge disallowed references to the Council on American Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) ties to Hamas in a lawsuit brought by a civil liberty group against the San Diego Unified School District, reported the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

However, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant did allow references to CAIR’s hostility towards Israel and allegations that CAIR “promotes discriminatory bias against non-Muslim students on the basis of their religion.”

The case involves a suit brought by the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF) against the school district for instituting an anti-Islamophobia/anti-bullying program designed by CAIR.

The suit charges that the program is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.

Since the program is solely about Muslims students, the FCDF charges that it establishes them “as a privileged group within the school community.” Moreover, the suit contends that CAIR, the designers of the program, is an organization that is “intrinsically religious in nature.”  In addition, the suit charges that CAIR has “prioritized public schools as ground zero to advance its religious mission.”

(more…)

Share

THE MEMO – WHAT IT SAYS AND FULL TEXT

Friday, February 2nd, 2018

 

THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Share

VIDEO – GREATEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Friday, February 2nd, 2018

 

 

VIDEO 

 A riveting  interview done by Ginny Thomas of former federal prosecutor Joe deGenova concerning the  whole sordid story behind the FBI and Justice Department involvement in the Russian Collusion investigation, the manufactured dossier and coverup of the Uranium One Scandal.   Absolutely fascinating !  Thanks to Steve Bishop for sharing.   Nancy:

Share

WISCONSIN, THE SURVEILLANCE STATE

Thursday, December 28th, 2017

 

This information regarding intimidation and harassment by the Left  of Wisconsin conservatives who supported Governor Scott Walker has received very little media coverage.  Please share with your email lists and let’s let a little sunshine in.  It has been said that sunshine is the best disinfectant !   Nancy
THE WEEKLY STANDARD

Wisconsin, the Surveillance State

The ‘John Doe’ scandal widens.
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  John Doe proceedings are initiated by a judge to see if a crime has been committed; investigators and suspects are prohibited from discussing the case. The Wisconsin law, dating to 1889, was intended to protect the identities of those being investigated. Yet the inquiries into Walker and his supporters achieved the exact opposite effect. While confidential details about Republicans leaked freely to the media, those under investigation were barred from defending themselves. The gag order against the investigation’s targets prompted U.S. Circuit Court judge Frank Easterbrook to call the John Doe framework “screamingly unconstitutional.”In 2012, the Milwaukee County district attorney asked for a second John Doe probe, into Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. This one gained national notoriety in October 2013, when law enforcement officers began making paramilitary-style, pre-dawn raids on the homes of unsuspecting private citizens. With floodlights trained on the targets’ homes, armed officers threatened to beat doors down with battering rams; rifled through rooms; and seized phones, computers, and bank records without allowing the subjects to contact their attorneys. Groggy families awakened to the sound of police boots running through their homes were told that they could not tell anyone what had happened.

Their crime? Supporting conservative causes in Wisconsin.


On May 23, the Wisconsin Department of Justice (WisDOJ) received a call from the state’s ethics board. An employee rummaging around in the basement of the building had found a filing cabinet full of material from the now-defunct “John Doe” investigations into the state’s Republican governor, Scott Walker, and his supporters.

WisDOJ was investigating the illegal 2016 leak to the Guardian of confidential details from the investigations, and in January, it had ordered that all John Doe records be turned over immediately. Yet this unexpected trove appeared four months later. The new evidence included three hard drives, 10 optical disk drives, a thumb drive, and paper files, which contained nearly 500,000 private emails and text messages collected from Republican political aides and staffers between 2009 and 2012. Among the millions of pages were discussions of the most personal nature—Wisconsin GOP staffers talking with family members about illness, helping friends through precarious relationships, and discussing money troubles with their spouses. Not knowing government bureaucrats were monitoring their discussions, some saved sensitive passwords in Gmail accounts; others sent pictures of themselves trying on clothes to friends and asked how they looked. Many of these messages were filed in a folder marked “opposition research.”

On December 6, the WisDOJ released a 91-page report on the leak, and what it shows is that Wisconsin public officials set up what amounts to a political spying operation.

The John Doe investigations have been a fixture of Wisconsin politics and courts for more than half a decade. Originating in 2010 with a request from Milwaukee County executive Scott Walker—who was running for governor—to investigate some missing money in his own office, they metastasized into a series of wide-ranging witch hunts used to harass and intimidate conservatives. In both the 2012 recall election to unseat Walker and the 2014 gubernatorial race, Democrats frequently cited the investigations as evidence of his “corruption.”

John Doe proceedings are initiated by a judge to see if a crime has been committed; investigators and suspects are prohibited from discussing the case. The Wisconsin law, dating to 1889, was intended to protect the identities of those being investigated. Yet the inquiries into Walker and his supporters achieved the exact opposite effect. While confidential details about Republicans leaked freely to the media, those under investigation were barred from defending themselves. The gag order against the investigation’s targets prompted U.S. Circuit Court judge Frank Easterbrook to call the John Doe framework “screamingly unconstitutional.”

In 2012, the Milwaukee County district attorney asked for a second John Doe probe, into Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. This one gained national notoriety in October 2013, when law enforcement officers began making paramilitary-style, pre-dawn raids on the homes of unsuspecting private citizens. With floodlights trained on the targets’ homes, armed officers threatened to beat doors down with battering rams; rifled through rooms; and seized phones, computers, and bank records without allowing the subjects to contact their attorneys. Groggy families awakened to the sound of police boots running through their homes were told that they could not tell anyone what had happened.

Their crime? Supporting conservative causes in Wisconsin.

The legal basis for the second investigation was specious as prosecutors were accusing Walker of illegally coordinating with third-party groups during the recall elections in 2012. But that interpretation of state law relied on an outdated reading of election law—which had been overturned by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. In January 2014, Judge Gregory Peterson effectively shut the second investigation down, noting that the conservative groups were engaged in constitutionally protected speech. In July 2015, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court ended the investigation for good and ordered that all the evidence be destroyed or returned to its owners.

It was only after this court order that dozens of conservative activists learned that three years’ worth of their private email and text messages had been seized. With the release of the WisDOJ report, the public found out that this mountain of intimate, private correspondence had been sitting for years in an unsecured filing cabinet in the basement of what used to be the offices of the Government Accountability Board (GAB), which enforced the state’s ethics and elections laws until 2015, when it was replaced by two separate watchdogs. Much of this material had been reviewed and filed by GAB staff when they began the secret investigation that WisDOJ calls “John Doe III.”

The existence of this third investigation came as a complete surprise to the state’s attorney general when he learned of it last year. WisDOJ agents surmised it was instigated by staff at the GAB when they had caught wind of “illegal” campaigning by legislative staff during the 2012 recall elections that swept Wisconsin in the wake of Scott Walker’s controversial union reforms.

It was many of these staffers whose private emails and chats showed up in the basement. Investigators identified 35 campaign workers whose personal accounts had been obtained by search warrant, and in its report, WisDOJ said it was “deeply concerned by what appears to have been the weaponizing of GAB by partisans in furtherance of political goals.” The list of people subjected to the search includes not just people who worked on the 2012 recall campaigns, but also Republican Party of Wisconsin staffers and Scott Walker aides. One former Senate aide says he had spent two weeks in Wisconsin’s North Woods in 2012 volunteering for a Republican candidate, and for this innocuous act, three years of his emails were seized.

Republican state senator Leah Vukmir, who will be running for the U.S. Senate in 2018, was also subject to the spying. WisDOJ found files with more than 150 emails between Vukmir and her daughter—many of which contained “private medical information and other highly personal information.” In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on December 10, an outraged Vukmir announced she was looking into her legal options for the violation of her privacy. “This was criminal behavior, and the individuals involved ought to see jail time,” she wrote. Vukmir says that despite the court order, she was never notified that her emails had been seized.

As Vukmir’s daughter’s case demonstrates, it wasn’t simply the targets of the investigation whose personal information ended up before the leering eyes of the GAB staff. All those who emailed one of the subjects on the list were unwittingly spilling their personal secrets to government bureaucrats, whether they had any connection to the ill-fated investigation or not.

WisDOJ investigators never conclusively identified where the leak to the Guardian came from, but the report noted that the only place where all the relevant documents were ever held all together was a portable hard drive belonging to a GAB investigator named Shane Falk. According to the same report, the file cabinet holding all the seized personal emails and documents was adorned by Post-it notes suggesting that Falk was also its owner.

A Democratic appointee to the GAB, Falk made the news in 2015 when his zeal to take down Scott Walker was revealed in leaked emails. In an email to prosecutors in November 2013, Falk wrote that the alleged coordination between Walker’s campaign and conservative groups was a “bastardization of politics” and that the state was being run “by corporations and billionaires.” According to emails released by WisDOJ, Falk frequently harangued other John Doe prosecutors for not going after Walker vigorously enough and questioned their knowledge of campaign finance law. Ironically, it was Falk’s legal reasoning that was repeatedly rejected in court after court.

In interviews since the WisDOJ report was released, Falk has said he doesn’t know anything about the leak and that he doesn’t know how the personal emails obtained by GAB came to be marked “opposition research.” In its report, WisDOJ called the leak a crime, but concluded that it couldn’t identify who had made it—so instead of criminal charges, Wisconsin attorney general Brad Schimel forwarded contempt of court charges against Falk and eight other GAB investigators for their reckless handling of records.

Those records include numerous details of state Republicans’ private lives, collected with little probable cause in the course of a bogus investigation. To date, WisDOJ agents have not been able to locate Falk’s external hard drive, which mysteriously went missing after he resigned from the board.

 

 

Christian Schneider is a columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories