"Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle to injustice. In short, law IS justice." Bastiat.
Most Grand Juries investigate crimes attached to people. The only time they investigate people is when there is enough evidence gathered by Investigators tasked with investigating a crime and finding those individuals responsible for it. However, today our surveillance state gathers data on people in order to find a crime.
Several years ago I wrote a piece 'How to Prosecute a Ham Sandwich' (4/6/2015).
"..In a University of Tennessee Law School paper written in 2012, author Glenn Harlan Reynolds writes about one Southern District of New York where the Prosecutors would play a game naming a famous person and then searching the law books for any crime that could be attached to that person..."
In Dan Cannon's book 'Pleading Out' (Hachette Book Group Inc. 3/22) he writes of the lack of oversight concerning probes, Prosecutors, police officers and the ability of the criminal justice system to grind down an alleged offender into simply giving up and accepting a guilty plea over a lesser charge (regardless of actual guilt) or face a criminal trial and possible, serious prison time. This is known as 'Process Crime'. The ordeal of General Flynn is a stunning example of Process Crime. The three year long Russia-gate investigation against President Trump can be put into that pile as well. It doesn't matter that the case was finally disposed of with no conviction the damage is done to the accused. Bankrupt, broken family, the shroud of suspicion, the physical and emotional scars will carry on well into the future.
In a November 2014 National Review article by Conrad Black;
"..Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the federal district court in New York..... laments the breakdown in American criminal justice caused by abuse of the plea-bargain system. He writes, correctly, that “the criminal-justice system in the United States today bears little relationship to what the Founding Fathers contemplated..."
But those obsessed with finding guilt are just that. Obsessed. The drug addiction like fervor of the Democrats to get President Trump for.. Anything.. will be a sad chapter in American history. The pallor of animus over the man is symptomatic of our decay as a Republic where the rights of the individual's innocence are circumvented by the mob dissemination and digestion of garbage information and media complicity.
But why a Senate Select Committee? Why the Star Chamber?
According to a simple Google search Star Chambers were set up centuries ago. One notably by Henry VIII.
"...Star chambers, named after the room in which the court met in
The Star Chamber was a political weapon to bring action against political opponents of the King. So, this Committee as well was devised to bring action against political opponents.
"...by the time of Charles I it had become a byword for misuse and abuse of power by the king and his circle. James I and his son Charles used the court to examine cases of sedition, which, in practice, meant that the court could be used to suppress opposition to royal policies. It became used to try nobles too powerful to be brought to trial in the lower courts. Court sessions were held in secret, with no right of appeal..."
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Documents/the_court_of_star_chamber.htm
Conrad Black quotes Jefferson's expression of faith of jury trials in his article, “....the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
But we no longer have jury trials. We have plea deals and Star Chambers. We also have a tail wagging the dog media hungry for the next scandal and witches to burn at the stake of higher ratings. So, if they couldn't get the President then they will get someone. And there were plenty of people that day of January 6th to gather up in the net.
The President WAS obsessed with voter fraud. He had every reason to be. Despite the fact that many on his team, William Barr and other legal minds were in disagreement there were many others who supported the President's suspicions. However, the Star Chamber report only wants the public to view the opposition to Trump as the voices of reason while those who held a different point of view were complicit in a criminal conspiracy to thwart the ".. peaceful transition of power.."
From the report:
"On November 8th, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich met President Trump at the White House. Two days later, he sent a follow-up note to the President’s executive assistant titled “please give to POTUS[,] newt.” It suggested that “[t]he only way Trump loses is rigged system” and added that President Trump could encourage “GOP legislatures elect not to send in electors,” forcing a House vote by State delegations on January 6th that Gingrich expected President Trump would win.37 Meadows replied: “Thanks Speaker..."
"... Representative (Scott)Perry was one of President Trump’s key congressional allies in the effort to overturn the election’s results. Representative Perry was an early supporter of the “Stop the Steal” campaign and, as noted above, addressed the crowd at one such event outside the Pennsylvania State capitol in Harrisburg on November 5, 2020.166 Representative Perry was also one of 27 Republican Congressmen who signed a letter requesting that President Trump “direct Attorney General Barr to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate irregularities in the 2020 election.... Representative Perry attended the December 21st Oval Office meeting along with at least 10 other congressional Republicans to discuss the strategy for objecting to the electoral college votes on January 6th. Along with 125 other Republican Members of Congress..."
None of this is illegal. In fact there is historical precedent for this electoral dispute. In the 1876 election between Republican Hayes and Democrat Tilden there were 19 electoral votes in question from Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. A special investigative commission was drawn up to settle the dispute. This commission was a true bi-partisan board ( much like the original plan to investigate the 2020 dispute).
"..On January 29, 1877, Congress created an Electoral Commission to break the deadlock. The commission was to have five members from the House of Representatives, five from the Senate, and five from the Supreme Court. As originally conceived, the commission was to comprise seven Democrats, seven Republicans, and one independent..."
www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1876/The-disputed-election
But while the commission deliberated Hayes sent people to negotiate with Southern Democrats to sway their votes. One of Hayes' concessions to the Dems was to pull out the occupying forces of the North, end carpet bagging and return sovereignty to Southern States.
It worked. At 4am on March 2nd the impasse had been crossed and Hayes was elected with a narrow 185-184 Electoral win.
What we need to be cognizant of is that if you have a gut feeling about something it is wise to pursue it (or avoid it whatever the case may be). The history of Democrat fraud in elections transcends over a century. Hillary wrote about her participation during Kennedy's election. Johnson rigged Texas. FDR strong armed his opponents during campaigns, Brenda Calhoun Snipes of Broward County openly admitted she played footsie with ballots until Governor Ron DeSantis fired her ass!
If it walks like a duck..?
In the weeks leading up to Jan. 6 President Trump pleaded with AG William Barr to investigate every allegation. From Pennsylvania to Georgia and Arizona there was concern over Dominion machines and vote tallies exceeding actual ballots that were sent out. Again, the reply from Barr and many officials in those states came back with the term that appears dozens of times in the J6 Report:
".. no significant fraud to affect the outcome of the election.."
From the report:
"..White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows arranged a meeting with the President at 6:15 p.m. that evening (Jan.3rd)... During the meeting, (Jeff) Clark attempted to defend the last-minute move to make him Acting Attorney General. Clark said he would “conduct real investigations that would, in his view, uncover widespread fraud... “last opportunity to sort of set things straight with this defective election,” and he had the “intelligence,” the “will,” and “desire” to “pursue these matters in the way that the President thought most appropriate...."
"...Some of the participants in the meeting argued that Clark was the wrong person for the job of Attorney General. Clark attempted to defend his credentials, arguing that he had been involved in complicated civil and environmental litigation. “That’s right. You’re an environmental lawyer,” (Richard) Donoghue fired back. “How about you go back to your office, and we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill..."
The President then decided NOT to appoint Clark. To do so would result in mass resignation from the DOJ. The President thanked Clark but eventually decided NOT to appoint him. The Bureaucracy would, ".. eat you alive.."
The clock was running down. By this time the electoral votes had already been confirmed, the slates of alternate electors had been refused, held up or just ignored. All that was left was the ceremonial on Jan 6th where VP Pence would preside over the counting. Despite this there were still dozens of Senators who wanted to take to the floor and demand an investigation. They were all summarily denied.
As stated above concerning the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876, problems arising from the Electoral College and the details of how it plays out are nothing new. The Electoral College Act of 1887 has a few gaps itself. Although the law clearly states a timeline for all this to be done the law is ambiguous as to what sort of exceptions could allow states to choose their Electoral College members. It also allows Congress to contest the vote counts and have them tossed. States can resolve their own disputes but there are no legal guidelines. And there is no official process to resolve a Congressional dispute should one arise.
campaignlegal.org
This according to a Wikipedia search:
"..The Act thus relegated Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor had certified two different slates of electors or if a state failed to certify its results under the Act's procedures...Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to set its own procedural rules, it is possible that simple majorities of the House and Senate could set new rules for the joint session convened to count electoral votes.. Both houses could overrule the vice president's decision to include or exclude votes, and under the Act even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification..."
So there were avenues (however narrow) that the President and Congress could have gone down but nobody was willing to step up to the plate except a very few. Instead, advisors to the President balked. Too afraid for their own necks should this go belly up. Everyone screaming about a Constitutional crisis!
Well, we've got one now.
And to make sure NONE of this ever happens again the Democrat controlled Congress pushed through a last minute Bill to "fix" the problem. In late last December the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 was shoved into the Consolidate Appropriations Act of 2023 and signed into law by President Joe Biden.
"..It was sponsored by Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. After about a year of negotiations, it became Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which passed 68–29 in the Senate on December 22, 2022, and 225–201 in the House the following day.[1][2] On December 29, 2022, it was signed into law by President Joe Biden...."
It was the final Democrat Party and RINO middle finger to the will of the people by the outgoing 117th Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Reform_and_Presidential_Transition_Improvement_Act_of_2022
....And That Is The Diatribe....
No comments:
Post a Comment