Category: Justice Department

Categories
Crime Donald Trump Impeachment Justice Department WTF?!

Trump Claims Jack Smith ‘Can’t Bring A Case’ Because Senate Acquitted Him During Impeachment

According to failed one-term, twice-impeached and multiply indicted former president Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith “can’t bring a case” against him in federal court because he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate during his impeachment trials in 2019 and 2021.

Clearly expecting to be indicted yet again by Smith for his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, disgraced ex-president went on his failing Truth Social site and made the following post:

“How can Deranged Jack Smith bring a case on January 6th., as ridiculous as it is anyway, when I have already won such a case, and been fully acquitted, in the U.S. Senate? In other words, I was Impeached on this, and WON!!! ELECTION INTERFERENCE & PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, all rolled up as one. We are truly a Nation In Decline!”

Of course, anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the U.S. Constitution knows that impeachment and criminal indictment are in no way connected.

Here are the basic differences between the two:

Indictment is a formal accusation that someone has committed a crime. It is typically issued by a grand jury and serves as the basis for a criminal trial. In other words, when someone is indicted, they are formally charged with a crime and must stand trial to prove their innocence.

Impeachment, on the other hand, is the process by which a government official is charged with misconduct or abuse of power. This can include charges of bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Impeachment is a political process that is used to hold elected officials accountable for their actions while in office.

One is a legal process. The other is a political process.

It’s no surprise that Trump is confusing the two processes. After all, he’s easily the most ignorant person ever elected to the presidency.

 

Categories
Capitol Insurrection Crime January 6 Justice Department

J6 Rioter Facing Quadrupled Prison Sentence After Calling Prosecutors A ‘Clown Show’

A New York man convicted for taking part in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol could soon be facing a long time in prison as the result of an angry tirade he directed at federal prosecutors after he was convicted.

Frank Giustino was originally sentenced to three weeks incarceration for actions, but is now likely to get four months because he couldn’t keep his big mouth shut.

Scott MacFarlane of CBS News reports that Giustino showed “no remorse for his conduct on January 6” and instead presented “himself as the victim,” all the while referring to “the prosecution as a ‘clown show’ and a ‘nuisance.'”

“Giustino’s behavior in Court further evinces his belief that the attack on the Capitol was righteous… necessitating a sentence that will deter him from similar conduct,” prosecutors argue.

While it’s rare for prosecutors to call for an increase in a sentence, Giustino appears to have given then exactly the proof they need that an enhancement is justified.

Giustino previously proved his complete lack of respect for the law by firing his attorney and demanding that he be allowed to represent himself even though the judge in the case informed him that a lawyer could help him negotiate a lower sentence.

 

Categories
Crime Donald Trump Justice Department WTF?!

Kimberly Guilfoyle Suggests She Knows More About Federal Law Than Jack Smith

Disgraced former Fox “News” host Kimberly Guilfoyle, who is engaged to Donald Trump Jr., wants us all to know that Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith doesn’t understand federal law the way she does, and that means the criminal case against failed former president Donald Trump doesn’t have a chance of succeeding.

On her podcast, Guilfoyle went on for several minutes about the indictment of her future father-in-law, suggesting that presidential power always overrides the law, even after a president leaves the White House and returns to private life.

“You’ve heard a lot about the Espionage Act and all of the bluster from Special Counsel Jack Smith, but there’s another law called the Presidential Records Act that undercuts the entire argument. Any record the president or his staff creates or receives in their official duty or capacity is a presidential record,” Guilfoyle insisted.

“Translation: Donald Trump had the right under the law to maintain custody of his records whether they were classified or not,” she added.

“So what we’re really dealing with is just another example of Democrat prosecutors creating new legal theories to weaponize the law against Donald Trump,” Guilfoyle claimed.

Wow! Is that true? Nope. What Guilfoyle said is a complete crock of shit, as CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale explained in March.

The Presidential Records Act says that, the moment a president leaves office, NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) gets custody and control of all presidential records from his administration. Nothing in the act says there should be prolonged “talk” or a negotiated “agreement” between a former president and NARA over a former president’s return of presidential documents – much less that there should have been a months-long battle after NARA first contacted Trump’s team in 2021 to try to get some of the records that had not been handed over at the end of his presidency.

The Presidential Records Act could not possibly be clearer. It reads:

“Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.”

Reports are that Trump is looking for a good attorney to represent him in the upcoming documents case. Since Guilfoyle seems to be such an expert, why doesn’t he ask her to be his lawyer?

Probably because he knows she’s a clueless moron and he’d wind up getting a 500-year sentence.

 

Categories
Congress GOP Justice Department

WATCH: Jim Jordan’s ‘Weaponization’ Witness Gets Humiliated When Asked About His Revoked Security Clearance

This hasn’t been a very good day for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Jordan’s committee held a hearing this morning regarding the so-called “weaponization” of the Justice Department against failed and indicted former president Donald Trump, and his first “whistleblower” was quickly discredited with a line of questioning about why he lost his security clearance when he worked for the FBI.

The witness/whistleblower, Steve Friend, who served as an agent in the Miami FBI office was asked by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), “You … claim that your top secret security clearance was improperly revoked. Yet an independent investigation concluded that you demonstrated a number of security concerns, which included that you refused to execute a court-ordered arrest warrant, and when you downloaded documents from intelligence systems to an unauthorized removable flash drive.”

Friend said nothing, so Wasserman Schultz continued:

“The cherry on top could be your unauthorized recording of executive management, which, as I’m sure you know, violates Florida law, along with your unsanctioned interviews with Sputnik News, established by the Russian government in 2014 and fully owned by the Kremlin and Putin’s cronies.”

The congresswoman concluded her remarks by noting, “I think it’s clear who is weaponizing government.”

Jordan’s other witness, FBI agent Marcus Allen, also lost his security clearance because he refused to share information with fellow agents regarding January 6 suspects who were under investigation.

It’d be tempting to call Jordan’s bogus hearings a dog and pony show, but that would be an insult to dogs, ponies, and shows.

 

Categories
Abuse of Power Justice Department Supreme Court

Clarence Thomas Is Now A Step Closer To Being Criminally Referred To The DOJ

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is a step closer to being criminally referred the U.S. Department of Justice for expensive trips and other perks he received from a top Republican donor, some of which were valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Last week, ProPublica revealed the connections between Thomas and billionaire megadonor Harlan Crow.

One of the trips Thomas took was to Indonesia.

IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.

But there were many other jaunts around the globe for Justice Thomas and his wife, Ginni, who worked to try and overturn the results of the 2020 election so that Donald Trump could remain in office despite having lost in a landslide to President Joe Biden.

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has written a committee of federal judges who oversee matters related to members of the judiciary and is requesting a formal criminal referral of Thomas to the Justice Department, noting:

Campaign Legal Center respectfully requests that the Judicial Conference exercise its authority pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 13106(b) and refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Attorney General because there is “reasonable cause to believe” that he “willfully failed to file information required to be reported” under the Ethics in GovernmentAct (“EIGA”).

Specifically, Justice Thomas’ public statement on April 7, 2023, and recent news reporting, confirm that for over twenty years he did not file required gift disclosures of private plane and yacht travel from one individual. There is reasonable cause to believe that the omissions were willful because Justice Thomas (1) previously reported private plane travel from the same individual in compliance with the law, but stopped the disclosures after negative media attention; and (2) has a history of omitting significant information from his financial disclosure reports.

Thomas has served on the Supreme Court since 1991.