Harris’ campaign is promising that if she is elected and the numbers in Congress work, Democrats will eliminate the Senate filibuster. //

The Dems are not promising to eliminate the filibuster to break a few ties, with the understanding that there will likely be future turnabout and their worst Republican policy nightmares will come true. This time they are playing for keeps.

If they can broadly eliminate the filibuster, buy four more senators, make millions of illegal aliens citizens with a 51-senator vote, rig our voting system processes, and rejigger the Supreme Court to create a roster of 13 mostly leftist justices, then they can entirely stop speaking to the Republican side of the aisle because they will have a permanent filibuster-proof Senate majority. And the Republicans will never have enough voters to reinstate legislative bumpers for both sides. It is not that Democrats have evaluated the likely conservative counter-offensive and determined that the risk is a good one. They perceive no risk. With all these sweeping changes, they can do whatever they want until the end of time with no practical oversight or influence of the people. The only two things holding them back are a Harris victory in November and a conscience they sorely lack. We will be a functional leftist autocracy. //

The question is who wants to live in a place in which only a single point of view is mandated from the top of government down by people who have proven themselves to be too ineffective to lead under the rules that have existed for generations? Who will support a Republican Party that sees all of this partisan rule breaking coming and does nothing to stop it? This presidential election is a referendum on both parties, neither of which seems able to look to the future to understand its gravity. //

Regardless of how many times Democrat candidates tell us that they are protecting democracy, they are not doing anything of the sort. Democracy is mob rule, one more vote than the other team. The filibuster is not contained in the Constitution but instead is the logical outgrowth of the long-developed Senate rule-making process. For a bill to be filibuster-proof, it required the support of 67 senators until a rule change reduced that number to 60 in 1975. Legislative processes are not designed so one party or the other, with 51 votes, can trade radical swings in our country’s laws and policies. They are designed for the opposite result, to force legislation down the middle and away from both ideological extremes.

Our Constitution and Senate and House rules are written to compel legislators, who work for the people, to stand eye-to-eye, communicate, and compromise for the greater good. The 60 votes serve as an effective buffer against radicalism. Harris and her party have utter disdain for that rule book.

Will Scharf @willscharf
·
Remember: November 18, 2022 was THE key day when all four criminal cases kicked off.

• Nathan Wade was at the White House for 8 hours.

• Jack Smith was appointed Special Counsel.

• Matthew Colangelo quits DOJ, and shows up a few weeks later at Bragg’s office in New York.

KanekoaTheGreat @KanekoaTheGreat

BREAKING: Prosecutor Nathan Wade admitted to multiple meetings with the Biden-Harris White House during Fani Willis's prosecution of Donald Trump in Georgia but repeatedly claimed, "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" the details of those meetings.
10:01 PM · Oct 21, 2024

The observant reader might also note that Trump announced his candidacy on...November 15, 2022.

I really don't see how you finesse this. Buttigieg is with the Harris campaign; one assumes "ready to win" is not some obscure gay sex act and refers to the 2024 election. Harris campaign items festoon the wall behind him. The people are so enthusiastic that it can only be a Harris campaign event headlined by Buttigieg.

All joking aside, there is no way this is not some level of violation of the Hatch Act. Either he's actively campaigning for Harris or giving the impression of actively campaigning for Harris. Both are illegal. The real question is if anyone in the federal government cares. My guess is they don't for all the obvious reasons. //

anon-2hhh
3 hours ago
That’s really cool that we have all these laws concerning government employees and electioneering. Too bad election laws don’t mean any more than immigration laws to Democrats. If only ‘no one is above the law’ were true.

When CNN pundits are asking questions, you know it smells. Though the outlet is famous for their hatred for Trump, even their senior legal analyst Elie Honig is wondering, just what the heck is going on here?

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig on Friday said he is unaware of “any precedent” for Judge Tanya Chutkan releasing redacted documents of special counsel Jack Smith’s evidence against former President Donald Trump, given the November election is approaching. //

🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸
@mrddmia
·
Follow
More blatant lawfare and election interference by Biden-Kamala’s Jack Smith and DC Obama Judge Tanya Chutkan.

They’re publicly dumping a one-sided political narrative tomorrow.

With the election less than 3 weeks away.

After waiting nearly 3 years to bring the (bogus) charges.
9:09 PM · Oct 17, 2024 //

Is it election interference? "It’s very much a Rorschach test,” Honig said. I sure as heck know what I'm reading from that test.

He argued that the matter is open to interpretation, which is damning enough considering that even the appearance of banana republic justice is problematic after all the abuses of the Justice Department since Biden-Harris came into power. //

The Justice Department flatly states in their manual:

Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.

On Thursday, Trump's team filed a motion to continue the stay until November 14, arguing, in part, that allowing the “asymmetric release of charged allegations and related documents during early voting creates a concerning appearance of election interference.” Chutkan denied that motion, however, and indicated that she would lift the stay of her prior order on Friday, which she then did, directing the Clerk of the Court to docket the Government's redacted appendices (laying out their evidence) on the public docket.

Of note, in making that ruling, Chutkan determined that publicly docketing the Government's evidence against Trump less than three weeks ahead of Election Day did not create such a concerning appearance. Rather, Chutkan reasoned that not doing so would run the risk of creating the appearance of election interference: //

So, in one breath, she says she's going to allow the Government to present its case publicly (when Trump's response isn't due to be filed until after the election) for fear that not doing so would appear to be election interference, and in the next, she's saying that the court will "continue to keep political considerations out of its decisionmaking."

The entire federal lawsuit will likely fail because it seems likely that the trademark and copyright claims will be dismissed because of either of two grounds, or both, and the federal court will decline to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

First, there is no trademark liability when there a sale of genuine goods bearing a true mark even if the sale is not authorized by the mark owner. Polymer Technology Corp. v. Mimran, 975 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1992). “[E]ven repackaging of goods is not trademark infringement if it does not deceive the public or damage the mark owner’s goodwill.” Id. at 62. Although this case is about services rather than goods, the same principle applies. Skiplagged is selling genuine American Airlines transportation, and therefore is entitled to use the American Airlines mark to describe the services being sold, notwithstanding the fact that American Airlines has not authorized Skiplagged from doing so.

Second, under the nominative fair use doctrine, a person may use a third party’s mark without liability to refer to the owner of the mark or to their goods or services. That is, if there is no other way to describe the goods or services, other than by using the mark, then such mark usage is not infringement. See New Kids on the Block v Gannett Satellite Info Network, 971 F. 2d 302 (9th Cir 1992).

The copyright claim is novel. The copyright office had denied registration initially, and the court will likely be reluctant to give much protection to a logo by laws intended to protect creative writing. It seems reasonable that the same grounds for non-liability under trademark law will apply as well to this copyright claim.

It was in the 2003 race for the job of San Francisco District attorney, which Harris won—by cheating. She had agreed, under penalty of perjury, to spending limits, as had her rivals, but then she simply ignored them. //

Sure, Kamala may have broken a little law here or there, but she’s a progressive Democrat in a one-party state—so what did she do? She simply hired a good attorney:

…thanks to hiring a good lawyer and making the excuse that, oh, the form changed, I didn't really understand the meaning of this, so please lift the cap. She got the San Francisco Ethics Commission—and by the way, many of those people on the ethics Commission owed their positions to Willie Brown.

She got them to look the other way on this gross violation. It's a crime, by the way.

She could have been prosecuted for a misdemeanor had she been properly held accountable for this significant campaign finance violation, and anybody else would have, but the Ethics Commission simply lifted the cap, which is not in the Statute, so instead of disqualifying her, which would have been the normal punishment, and prosecuting her, she simply got away with it.

So in her first race for elected office, she ignored the campaign finance limits, she used corrupt patronage from her former lover to raise the money necessary to do the glossy ads. I've got several examples here. She did more mailers than all of the other candidates. She had independent expenditures on her behalf, and she simply was able to outspend and blow through these limits. //

“It’s pretty incredible that the birth of this meteoric career comes out of multiple campaign violations,” she concluded. //

Cynical Optimist
10 hours ago
That interview with Tucker was arguably the most fascinating interview I've ever seen, but that probably is because I'm from the Bay Area and have been politically active for a long time, it brought back a lot of memories and flashbacks to San Francisco politics.

One of the things that Harmeet touched on briefly and that I've been interested in is the fact that Kamala Harris used to be a good public speaker, she was glib and knowledgeable, and could speak extemporaneously. But the fact that she now cannot speak publicly and appears to be genuinely dimwitted at times has been puzzling to me,

Harmeet's conclusion was that she has Imposter Syndrome, that she knows she doesn't belong and that she's in over her head. The problem with that argument is that she has been hand-selected for everything she's ever achieved and has been in over her head the entire time.

Louis Rukeyser's Ghost Cynical Optimist
10 hours ago
I've know serious people who were functioning drunks who degenerated into morons like this. Long term hard boozing screws a person up.

It seems intentionally cruel that, in a time when we can easily track mail packages, the federal prison system often fails to provide location information for its inmates. We live in a technologically advanced society where you can receive notifications about how many stops away your Amazon delivery is, yet your family member can disappear for over a month with no available information. This disparity demonstrates an ethical failure within the justice system.

If there is a silver lining to the January 6 prosecutions, it’s that we have learned a lot about the DOJ and the federal prison system. I’m not suggesting high-end luxury conditions for federal inmates—just basic information about their location at any given time. We must also ensure that seemingly endless transport, or "diesel therapy," isn’t used as a punitive measure, as psychologically torturing inmates is cruel and unusual. The impact of these policies extends beyond the inmates themselves, causing significant distress for their families, who deserve clarity.

Curiously, many supporters of criminal justice reform on the left seem hesitant to discuss these problems, even as we've gained insight into the system through the experiences of the Biden administration's numerous political prisoners.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) is facing accusations of unethical conduct after it was revealed that she allegedly had private communications with a key witness in the Jan. 6 investigation using an encrypted messaging app.

The lawmaker, a fierce critic of former President Donald Trump, played a pivotal role in the proceedings.

Cheney allegedly exchanged messages with former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson in June 2022 as the investigation was still in full swing, according to Just the News. It is believed she used Signal, the messaging app, as a back channel to discuss the case with Hutchinson.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), chairman of the House Administration oversight subcommittee, brought the allegations to light. //

“Our investigation has uncovered unethical back-channel communications between former Rep. Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson just before Hutchinson changed her sworn testimony,” Loudermilk said. “Not only is communicating with a witness without their attorney present unethical, it undermines the integrity of an investigation. //

“Clearly, Cheney did not want Stefan Passantino representing Hutchinson; as shortly after Cheney and Hutchinson began communicating, Cheney convinced Hutchinson to fire Passantino, and arranged for a new attorney to represent Hutchinson pro-bono. “ //

The revelation has raised questions about Hutchinson’s testimony – especially her wild claims about Trump.

The role of sheriff is one of the most understated positions in American governance, yet it is arguably one of the most important – especially from a liberty-centered perspective.

A sheriff who is fulfilling his or her constitutional duty stands up for the rights of citizens – especially in the face of state and federal overreach. They represent a sense of decentralization and the idea that local politics is the most important – which is why some progressives can’t stand them.

In a guest essay for the New York Times, author Maurice Chammah insinuated that sheriffs have far too much power. //

The notion that sheriffs hold too much power is indicative of a mindset that favors a top-down approach to governance rather than a bottom-up stance. They believe government at the federal and state levels should reign supreme even over local governments. In this light, the role of the sheriff could be problematic for this type of agenda. I wrote a piece on my Substack explaining how sheriffs who are doing their jobs can serve as bulwarks for liberty against government overreach. //

Dieter Schultz
4 hours ago edited
Sheriffs can refuse to enforce laws that violate constitutional rights – especially those laid out in the Bill of Rights.
It would seem to me that, because they took an oath to obey the Constitution, all law enforcement officers should be "refusing to enforce laws that violate constitutional rights"!

But, I guess that's just my silly take on things.

Goldman noted that Ranson relying on Copilot for "what was essentially a numerical computation was especially puzzling because of generative AI's known hallucinatory tendencies, which makes numerical computations untrustworthy." //

Because Ranson was so bad at explaining how Copilot works, Schopf took the extra time to actually try to use Copilot to generate the estimates that Ranson got—and he could not.

Each time, the court entered the same query into Copilot—"Can you calculate the value of $250,000 invested in the Vanguard Balanced Index Fund from December 31, 2004 through January 31, 2021?"—and each time Copilot generated a slightly different answer.

This "calls into question the reliability and accuracy of Copilot to generate evidence to be relied upon in a court proceeding," Schopf wrote. //

Until a bright-line rule exists telling courts when to accept AI-generated testimony, Schopf suggested that courts should require disclosures from lawyers to stop chatbot-spouted inadmissible testimony from disrupting the legal system. //

Goldman suggested that Ranson did not seemingly spare much effort by employing Copilot in a way that seemed to damage his credibility in court.

"It would not have been difficult for the expert to pull the necessary data directly from primary sources, so the process didn't even save much time—but that shortcut came at the cost of the expert's credibility," Goldman told Ars.

Democrats are trying everything they can to hold onto judicial power in case Trump wins in November. //

Texas’s firebrand attorney general, Ken Paxton, has been particularly successful in procuring injunctions in certain Texas-based federal courts against Biden’s myriad overreaches. Furious, leftists are now seeking to thwart Paxton by taking away a tool he has utilized to great effect: the single-judge division. //

Push to Randomly Assign Cases

Nevertheless, left-wing activists are now attempting to use the Judicial Conference, the supervisory body that essentially acts as the federal judiciary’s own Deep State, to end the use of single-judge divisions in all cases of injunctions against the federal or state government. Earlier this year, the Judicial Conference issued “advisory guidelines” to all the nation’s district courts, recommending that all cases be randomly assigned throughout the district in which they are filed — regardless of the division that actually receives the filing. //

Now, just weeks before a monumental election, leftists have once again ramped up their efforts to ram through a rule in the Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference that would make the previously “advisory” guidance outright mandatory, thus caving to the demands of, among others, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and the Biden Justice Department. The Judicial Conference purports to locate such authority in the Rules Enabling Act, the 1930s-era statute that authorizes the Judicial Conference to prescribe rules of civil and criminal procedure for the federal judiciary.

But Congress — not the judiciary — has the ultimate power to reject any rule promulgated by the Rules Enabling Act. Congress should not hesitate to exercise such power, should the Judicial Conference succeed in pushing through its single-judge division edict. //

But regardless of the election result, it is crucial to flag the left’s latest effort to decimate long-standing judicial norms simply because leftists are furious that they are not consistently getting their way in case outcomes. This attempt mirrors Justice Elena Kagan’s desperate and ludicrous call for lower federal courts to supervise the Supreme Court when it comes to recusal decisions. The proposal now before the Judicial Conference’s Rules Committee caves to the whining of leftist commentators upset over politically charged rulings. It is a nakedly political power grab.

Should the Rules Committee adopt the proposal, the Supreme Court needs to put its foot down. Because the justices have been issuing many decisions that leftists detest, the court in recent years has been subject to numerous high-profile political and physical attacks. //

Congress can also act — and has the leverage to do so. Right now, the Judicial Conference wants the U.S. House to pass two separate judge-related bills. One of those bills would authorize about 66 new federal judgeships; the other would extend some temporary judgeships. The House Judiciary Committee should refuse to act on either bill until the Judicial Conference agrees it will not alter the case-assignment process through its Deep State committees. Congress should demand that if the Judicial Conference wants changes to case-assignment procedure, it will seek new authorizing legislation so as to not create a conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 137. Congress, which alone writes federal law under our Constitution, must shut down the Judicial Conference’s highly dubious Rules Enabling Act legal theory of delegated power.

The appeals court ordered a new trial on damages because it said the $46.8 million award was too high, but affirmed the lower court's finding that Grande is liable for contributory copyright infringement. //

Back in 2020, we wrote about the voir dire questions that record labels intended to ask prospective jurors in their case against Grande. One of those questions was, "Have you ever read or visited Ars Technica or TorrentFreak?" //

The 5th Circuit remanded the case to the district court for a new trial on damages. Record labels can expect a lower payout because the appeals court said they can't obtain separate damages awards for multiple songs on the same album.

"The district court determined that each of Plaintiffs’ 1,403 sound recordings that was infringed entitled Plaintiffs to an individual statutory damages award," the 5th Circuit said. "Grande contends that the text of the Copyright Act requires a different result: Whenever more than one of those recordings appeared on the same album, Plaintiffs are entitled to only one statutory damages award for that album, regardless of how many individual recordings from the album were infringed. Grande has the better reading of the text of the statute."

The Copyright Act says that "all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work," the court said. In the Grande case, record labels sought damages for each song but conceded that "each album constitutes a compilation." //

Cox told the Supreme Court that ISPs "have no way of verifying whether a bot-generated notice is accurate. And no one can reliably identify the actual individual who used a particular Internet connection for an illegal download. The ISP could connect the IP address to a particular subscriber's account, but the subscriber in question might be a university or a conference center with thousands of individual users on its network, or a grandmother who unwittingly left her Internet connection open to the public. Thus, the subscriber is often not the infringer and may not even know about the infringement."

Cox asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the 4th Circuit "err[ed] in holding that a service provider can be held liable for 'materially contributing' to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it." //

Team Tardigrade Ars Centurion
4y
360
This should be fun. How long before someone accuses, oh I don't know, a hospital, state legislature, or The 5th Circuit of piracy to have them shut down? I'm assuming that systems like that become automated and that any accusation will result in being disconnected. //

Waco Ars Tribunus Militum
7y
1,674
Subscriptor

hillspuck said:
I'm struggling to find another solution than "lol copyright owners just have to suck it up and let people pirate all they want." That solution never flies with the people who own the politicians.
If they want to prove piracy, let them prove piracy. It still doesn't mean you get to cut off a utility necessary for modern life.

If they can't (or won't spend the money to do so) then piracy clearly isn't as big of a deal as they make it. //

mangoslice Smack-Fu Master, in training
9y
64
Subscriptor++
You are assuming there’s never even an accusation of piracy for an IP address that is tied to you. One of the issues here is that if a corporation says and claims you are committing piracy against them then ISPs would be compelled disconnect you.

No due process. //

Socks Mingus Ars Scholae Palatinae
5y
631
"The evidence at trial demonstrated that Grande had a simple measure available to it to prevent further damages to copyrighted works (i.e., terminating repeat infringing subscribers), but that Grande never took it," the 5th Circuit ruling said.

Does this mean we get to cut off access to the legal system any time a company and their affiliated law firms file a false DMCA claim? //

cyberfunk Ars Scholae Palatinae
12y
938
I think the decision headline here is really

"5th Circuit rules ISP should have to be bound by Jury Verdict​"

It's misleading to say that the 5th circuit here actually found in favor of Rightscorp per se.. they found that there was no credible reason to invalidate the jury verdict. In my eyes those are very different matters.

Yea, it's not the outcome I want either, but we do ourselves a disservice painting this as a bunch of "bad conservative judges doing the thing we don't like". I just don't see this decision as particularly partisan nor wildly unreasonable, legally speaking. It is, in fact, BETTER to have a jury rather than a bunch of judges deciding on such matters as it's a more direct representation of the popular power rather than the judiciary.

Yes, yes, the juries arn't always experts on matters of law, but the system is setup to work with a judge there advising them on such matters.. but the power rests with the common man here, not some set of judges.

I should say that this means we need to change the laws around copyright / DMCA notice abuse and procedure here rather than yell into the wind that some judges didn't do what we wanted (regardless of political orientation). Yelling at the judges for enforcing the laws on the books is silly and counterproductive.

Specifically, Judge John Bush said that judges should discern the original understanding of free speech in “linguistical meaning” and “evidence of how Americans ordered their lives” in the 1790s.

The Second Amendment case to which the authors referred was New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the Supreme Court ruled that, among other considerations, gun control laws must be consistent with the “historical” standard of restrictions on firearms.

The primary argument the authors made is that relying solely, or mostly, on historical interpretations of the law to define the scope of free speech is problematic. They contend that taking such an approach could lead to inconsistent, regressive, and ultimately tyrannical rulings that would roll back protections on speech.

“If rules from the 1790s were enforced today, citizens could be jailed for criticizing politicians, public figures could freely use defamation law to punish critics, and schoolchildren would have few if any free speech rights,” the authors stated.

The authors also noted court cases that expanded the right to free speech, specifically a 1943 case where a court “held that the government could not compel students to salute the flag because ‘no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion.’”

They also brought up a 1971 case that “held that the government could not ban vulgar or offensive speech.”

Yet, in the 17th and 19th centuries, the government had no problem with restricting speech in a way that seems foreign to us today:

Historically, the wrong kind of speech could land you in jail. Laws criminalizing blasphemy, government criticism, tepid sexual content, and other speech viewed to be bad or harmful were commonplace at the country’s founding.

Another historical example the authors offer is the prohibition of abolitionist speech in Southern states, showing how restrictions on speech were used to uphold oppressive institutions such as slavery. //

any court decision should be made through the lens of liberty, seeking to ensure the state does not infringe on any of our rights without an exceedingly good reason. The Framers sought to create a system of governance that would make it difficult for the state to impose laws or policies that make it more intrusive in our lives. The goal was to cultivate a society free from oppressive and unnecessary restrictions imposed with the threat of government violence.

The north star for any court should be liberty, regardless of whether it is in line with historical precedent. Otherwise, those seeking to violate our rights will find it far easier to do so.

This is unverified, un-cross-examined hearsay from grand jury testimony, which usually isn’t revealed publicly for that reason. He went to court. He asked for special permission to file a brief that’s four times as long as a normal brief and to have it disclosed less than 30 days before the election. This is professional misconduct in all likelihood by Jack Smith and it should be investigated. //

Cotton incisively argued that Trump didn't incite violence, as Smith's filing claims, but instead told the protesters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to “protest peacefully and patriotically," again calling Smith guilty of election interference.

This is a perfect example of actual election interference: Jack Smith violating Department of Justice regulations to try to get out as much unverified, so-called evidence as he has because he’s angry that he lost and the Democrats don’t think they can beat Donald Trump on issues like inflation and immigration. //

Finally, when Welker asked Cotton if Trump indeed lost the 2020 election, the senator deftly answered:

You had states that were changing their election practices or election laws, sometimes in violation of the Constitution. You had networks combining with big tech to suppress what we now know to be a truthful story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and the evidence that it exposed about Biden family corruption.

the Texas case will now return to the District Court for further proceedings, but for now, the Texas Human Life Protection Act remains in effect. //

Keith
2 hours ago
This frivolous appeal by Biden's admin is indicative of their contempt for legal rulings they don't like and the courts that issue them. They are tyrants just looking for the opportunity to rule us all.

SCOTUS was clear on making abortion a state, not federal issue. //

Largo Patriot
3 hours ago edited
States rights exist for a reason and do not prevail only when the federal government allows them to. That's the whole point of states rights. People in red states shouldn't have to live like the people in blue states and vice versa. Abortion advocates are hyperventilating that the federal government, at Trump's direction, will ban all abortions, but have no problem if the federal government, at a Democrat's direction, bans all restrictions on abortion, including restrictions that prevent born alive babies from being left to die. The best way to resolve this conflict is to allow state voters, not federal voters, to decide the regulation issue. We've been arguing about abortion for more than 50 years despite the fact it's been legal that entire time, but legal is never enough, safe and rare is a joke and "celebrate abortion" is the battle cry of pro-abortion advocates. Why don't they put as much time and effort into preventing unwanted pregnancies as they put into killing unwanted babies? It's cheaper, safer and no human life is lost.

Former President Donald Trump can expect to fight impeachment efforts again pending a second term this November.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 165-page report unsealed Wednesday is the Steele Dossier 2.0, an anonymously sourced manifesto compiled to warrant deep state investigations into former President Donald Trump with the ultimate aim of tossing him out of the White House. //

The report, filed and made public within 60 days of an election, serves no legitimate legal purpose, as the special counsel desperately attempts to thwart Trump’s return to the Oval Office.

“Smith was clearly eager to get this out before the public despite Justice Department policies that encourage prosecutors to avoid acts that would be viewed as trying to influence an election,” wrote George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley on X. //

“In some ways …” wrote former prosecutor and National Review Editor Andrew McCarthy, “Smith’s public submission is better than a trial.”

Trials are messy and unpredictable; prosecutors’ written descriptions of what they hope to prove are often compelling and damning. That is why, at a trial, the judge routinely instructs the jury that an indictment and proffers by a prosecutor are only allegations; they are not evidence, they are not subject to cross-examination, and they prove nothing. Here, by contrast, there will be no cautionary instructions. //

If Trump were to win, Smith is certain to continue the deep state lawfare campaign even after the election, likely challenging any effort for the president to pardon himself. In other words, Smith’s persistent prosecution laid out in the 165-page filing is the Democrats’ “insurance policy” against another Trump presidency.

Jack Smith has failed in his quest to try Donald Trump before the 2024 election. So instead, the special counsel has bent ordinary procedure to get in one last shot, just weeks before voters go to the polls.

Smith has now dropped a 165-page doorstop of a filing in federal court, on the issue of Trump’s immunity from prosecution. Judge Tanya Chutkan — who suddenly claims not to care about the impending election despite her earlier efforts to expedite the case to get it in before the very same election… duly complied with Smith’s wishes… //

New York Magazine
@NYMag
·
Follow
The special counsel had information he wanted to make public. But he bent important rules to do so, writes legal columnist Elie Honig.
nymag.com
Jack Smith’s October Surprise
9:12 AM · Oct 3, 2024 //

The larger, if less obvious, headline is that Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects. At this point, there’s simply no defending Smith’s conduct on any sort of principled or institutional basis. “But we need to know this stuff before we vote!” is a nice bumper sticker, but it’s neither a response to nor an excuse for Smith’s unprincipled, norm-breaking practice. (It also overlooks the fact that the Justice Department bears responsibility for taking over two and a half years to indict in the first place.)

Smith’s filing comes just in time for the Harris-Walz campaign to try and make Jan. 6 a top campaign issue. Vice President Kamala Harris made a post on X about Jan. 6 just hours before the filing was unsealed.

“On January 6, the former president incited an attack on our nation’s democracy because he didn’t like the outcome of the election,” Harris said in a post on X. “If you stand for country, democracy, and the rule of law — our campaign has a place for you.”

It also doesn’t hurt that Smith’s filing was conveniently unsealed hours after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz bombed in the vice presidential debate against Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance.

Smith had to walk a fine line in creating this filing after the Supreme Court shot down his earlier lawfare attempts. That’s to say, the high court could once again squash Smith’s lawfare efforts if the charges he brought against Trump impinged on the established presidential immunity guidelines.

But Smith doesn’t care whether the substance of his motion is just, accurate, or even legal, because it’s never been about the rule of law — it’s always been about interfering in the election.

anon-89ic God family country
4 hours ago edited
I don't think many Americans appreciate this danger. In banana republics, politicians, judges and lawyers are often murdered with impunity. Politicians, judges and lawyers are, for better or worse, the foundation of our Republic. Mass illegal immigration is bringing not the best of foreign cultures to our shores, but the worst of abuses of civil society. That's what Harris is promising to give more of--a world in which lawyers, judges and politicians, or the doctor who misdiagnoses your cancer, or the priest who opposes abortion, or the store keeper who didn't give you your change fast enough, is a bona fide target. For all of us lawyers who came under threat during the covid hoax for challenging government policy, this is just plain unbelievable. Lawyers having to carry guns? Lawyers having to give instructions to their spouses about what to do if they disappear on the way home from work? this is America? And that's why this story is not funny and needs to be seriously considered.

Gretz anon-89ic
2 hours ago
The erosion of the rule of law was the goal of the Marxists. Thank all of your Soros-backed cohort for making the law as ugly and meaningless as possible.