After meeting with Biden for 30 minutes, Lowell informed the Court that his client would enter a straight guilty plea instead of an Alford plea: //

So if the court believes that you have discretion to reject an Alford plea, we will go forward with an open plea. //

"He was entitled to a trial today, and that’s what we would have given him. So if he chooses to not exercise that right, he should be forced to say that it’s true."

After those arguments, Scarsi said:

“We’re going to take an open plea. I’m going to ask Mr. Biden if you’ve committed conduct that you believe satisfies each of the offenses as charged in the indictment.” //

Wise had informed Lowell that if Biden pled guilty, Wise planned to read the entire indictment as the government’s factual basis, and followed through on that promise. Lowell objected and said they’d stipulate to the factual basis so the long document wouldn’t need to be read aloud, but Scarsi asked Wise to continue as a precaution to ensure there is appropriate transparency and sufficiency for the public interest.

After the indictment was read, Scarsi asked Biden:

"Do you agree that you committed every element of every crime charged in counts 1-9 of the indictment?"

Biden replied, "Yes." //

Biden was then asked how he pled to each individual count and answered, "Guilty" to each one. //

Just Jim
15 hours ago
He's doing this because he doesn't want evidence presented that would become public and lead to further investigation into their money laundering scheme.

Jennifer Van Laar Just Jim
11 hours ago
Exactly. Lowell said in court (and I think I referred to it there) that after the unfavorable rulings in the motions hearing, they, ah, felt this was their best option. They wanted a lot of things suppressed that weren't going to be suppressed.

Chutkan made clear that the case would not be tried prior to Election Day in November. //

From a practical standpoint, this schedule should not affect Trump's campaigning ahead of the election. What it will do, however, is inject into the the media coverage all manner of negative assertions (and innuendos) regarding Trump, the 2020 election, and January 6 — which, for the Dems, is likely the next best thing to actually having the trial take place ahead of the election. Buckle up.

As jury selection was beginning in Hunter Biden's federal tax evasion trial in downtown Los Angeles Thursday, Hunter's defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, announced in court that Hunter intends to change his plea from not guilty to guilty. //

At a pre-trial motions hearing on August 21, it became clear that as the evidence was presented, it would be quite embarrassing for the First Family, as prosecutors would be forced to call witnesses and introduce documentation to prove that millions of dollars in expenses were business expenses and not personal. That meant that women Hunter had allegedly paid for sex would testify, and receipts from an online dating site would be brought before the jury and the American public. //

anon-vxao
an hour ago
Confirmation for sure that he's expecting a full pardon at the end of 2024. //

CarlFromCanton
an hour ago
If my dad were going to pardon me before he resigns, why would I sit through all that bummer crap first?

DKnight CarlFromCanton
an hour ago
Bingo. This also speeds up the court case so that it is finished before Biden leaves office, so his pardon can include everything instead of just the cases that have finished and sentencing started. //

Laocoön of Troy
an hour ago
This is likely a prelude to the issuance of Presidential pardons for the players in the Biden Junta. Get ready...they're cleaning up loose ends. And after being dumped by the Dem brain trust in favor of Harris, 'ol Joe ain't in a mood to do much to help Obama in the 2024 end-game. He's gonna take care of the family and his ill-gotten gains instead of the Democrat Party.

Attorney General Merrick Garland boasted on Friday how his office has prosecuted nearly 1,500 Americans for protesting the 2020 election, warning others they may face similar lawfare should they raise any concerns about the administration of the upcoming November election.

Speaking at a press briefing, Garland essentially said the Jan. 6 prosecutions should serve to remind Americans what happens if they raise questions about an election.

“I think our prosecutions have made clear what we think about people who try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, which is [an] essential and fundamental element of our democracy. //

The Washington, D.C. bar recommended that Trump-era DOJ official Jeffrey Clark be suspended for at least two years because he drafted a letter to Georgia officials in which he said the DOJ “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the [2020] election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.”

Notably, the 2020 election in Georgia was certified, though the State Election Board passed a motion this past May finding Fulton County double-scanned 3,075 ballots. The board did not issue a rule on the 17,852 votes that were, according to a complaint filed by Kevin Moncla and Joseph Rossi, allegedly missing ballot images in the county.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is threatening to prosecute a resident for “spread[ing]” what has been labeled as “misleading or false” election-related information, according to a “cease and desist” letter reported Tuesday. This comes just days after The Federalist revealed Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is urging residents to report their neighbors for so-called “election misinformation.”

Another day, another corrupt act by Democratic Party-aligned government lawyers—this time in Arizona.

Former Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis had all nine felony charges dismissed against her in the Arizona electors case Tuesday, supposedly “in exchange for” her promise to testify, according to the prosecutor’s press release.

There is no exchange here. Prosecutors in Democratic circles are now more concerned with feeding MSNBC’s nightly narrative machine than they are even pretending to care about justice.

This “cooperation agreement,” released gleefully in a Monday press release, fails to do what all cooperation agreements are supposed to do—help prove the case.

The case the Arizona AG is trying to make essentially boils down to: When Republicans in Arizona attempted to file an alternate slate of electors in the 2020 Electoral College, they were committing felony-level “fraudulent schemes” and forgery.

That is a difficult case to make, as Fulton County DA Fani Willis is also learning. //

In a just world, no judge would accept this plea deal. Prosecutors are extorting it out of her by charging her with near-treasonous crimes. //

Leftist lawfare prosecutors have been able to extort some plea deals in some jurisdictions by threatening big crimes and offering tiny punishments to different, tiny crimes. The Georgia and New York cases are both examples of this. Now add Arizona to the list.

It is a sad state of affairs for America. Prosecution has been flipped on its head. In a just world, facts backed by evidence are used to build charging decisions. In today’s deep blue court jurisdictions, charging decisions backed by agendized media are used to build public narratives.

You know the power I have as a prosecutor is that with the swipe of my pen, I can charge someone with a misdemeanor for the lowest level offense possible. And by virtue of that swipe of my pen, you will have to go to a courthouse and stand in line. You will have to come out of pocket and hire an attorney. You may get arrested for a few hours. You will be embarrassed in your community. You will miss time from coming onto the Google campus.

All because with the swipe of my pen, I've tried to charge you with a crime. Which I may choose to dismiss two weeks later. //

That may or may not have been her intent, but her swaying comportment and her excitement at talking about her magical powers are nevertheless chilling.

Those who contend that she was merely arguing in favor of prosecutorial discretion miss a key point: the kind of harassment she talks about is exactly what we’ve seen for three and half years out of the Biden/Harris Justice Department. They selectively prosecute enemies based on their political affiliation, and have waged a relentless, corrupt campaign against their number one foe, GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

when it comes to Roe v. Wade, for example, what did the court decide? Decided that we the people should answer that question, not nine people sitting in Washington, D.C. //

GARRETT: How about affirmative action?

GORSUCH: Much the same thing. What did we decide? We decided that all people are created equal, that it’s not acceptable in this country to discriminate on the basis of race. //

GARRETT: And, for those who would say but I feel something’s been ripped away from me, you would say?

GORSUCH: I would say that we’re taking it back to you. In a democracy, you’re in the driver’s seat. You’re the sovereign. Those famous three first words of the Constitution empower you. Do you really want me deciding everything for you?

GARRETT: And for a woman in a state where she no longer has the rights she once relied on, is that cold comfort?

GORSUCH: Major, all I can say is I don’t know better than you do on these questions. And that most major western democracies have decided these questions through the ballot box. //

part of me just wants to call Vladimir Duthiers an imbecile and leave it at that. His reasoning is so ridiculous as to be worthy of nothing but mockery. Would he say the same about the precedent that once allowed segregation of schools? What about the precedent that once restricted personhood for black Americans? The idea that a precedent is untouchable simply because it exists is moronic. What matters is proper legal interpretation of the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the end, what this Gorsuch interview shows is that Democrats have no actual argument. They are simply emoting at any given point, wrapping themselves in contradictions to garner the political outcome they want in the moment. The Supreme Court stands in the way of that, and that's why they are trying to destroy it.

. How does the court feel about potential changes — term limits, ethics codes that are enforced by someone in ways that it isn't now?

GORSUCH: Shannon, you're not going to be surprised that I'm not going to get into what is now a political issue during a presidential election year. I don't think that would be helpful.

I have one thought to add: It is that the independent judiciary means — what does it mean to you as an American? It means that when you're unpopular, you can get a fair hearing under the law and under the Constitution. If you're in the majority, you don't need judges and juries to hear you and protect your rights — you're popular.

It's there for the moments when the spotlight's on you, when the government's coming after you. And don't you want a ferociously independent judge and a jury of your peers to make those decisions? Isn't that your right as an American? And so, I just say, "Be careful."

Joe Biden's Defense Department approved a plea deal Wednesday for three of the conspirators behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and Walid Bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi will enter pleas before the military commission at Guantanamo Bay next week. //

The Pentagon announcement Wednesday didn’t include details, but a person familiar with the deal said that it involved a life sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. Prosecutors had been seeking the death penalty, but the torture of the defendants while in Central Intelligence Agency custody had clouded proceedings for years. //

President Biden learned of the plea bargain Wednesday, a National Security Council spokesman said.

“The president and the White House played no role in this process. The president has directed his team to consult as appropriate with officials and lawyers at the Department of Defense on this matter,” the spokesman said. //

The only reason we are going through this is because of a direct usurpation of congressional power by a crazed Anthony Kennedy and four fellow travelers. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 specifically placed review of the act outside the purview of the Supreme Court as allowed by Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The actions of the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush should have resulted in Bush telling Kennedy to take a long walk on a short pier, and impeachment proceedings should have been brought against every federal judge who agreed to touch the case. But, alas, that would have required courage.

So, the final curtain is coming down on 9/11 and the Global War on Terror. Thanks to the Defense Department's total lack of transparency, it looks like that curtain will go down with as much controversy as when it came up.

J.P. Cooney cultivated a politically toxic environment, disseminated baseless conspiracy theories, and engaged in unprofessional conduct, a report says. //

Cooney is mentioned (as the “Fraud and Public Corruption Section Chief”) a whopping 394 times in the 85-page report released from the Justice Department’s inspector general on July 24.

The entire proceeding is a farce. South Africa, through a highly distorted set of accusations, doesn’t seek to prevent genocide, it seeks to enable genocide against Jews by preventing Israel from defending itself. //

Here is Israel’s entire presentation today:

https://youtu.be/imn9daDE2dQ

Of the major cases the US Supreme Court has heard this term, one that might not have gotten as much attention as it should have, is SEC versus Jarkesy. The court heard oral arguments at the end of November, 2023. The case goes to the question of whether or not administrative agencies have the ability to use administrative courts with administrative law judges rather than those that are under the Third Article of the constitution to enforce their regulations and rulings.

The case is broadly seen as getting to the heart of separation of powers. increasingly executive agencies have found ways to concentrate power within themselves and not having to deal with the other branches of government.

The appeal filed held the argument that using administrative judges violates the constitution. The filing stated that the executive using its own judges to rule effectively meant that there was no oversight of the executive agencies that were pressuring the charges.

It also noted that the 7th Amendment of the Constitution gives the defendant the right of a trial by jury. For any civil damages that are greater than $20 one can also seek a jury. Executive agencies using their own courts have consistently refused to allow juries to be used.

 What happened on Sunday goes beyond protesting. This, and not moms going to school board meetings to demand that they be included in decisions about their children's education, is domestic terrorism, as defined by the FBI:

"Domestic Terrorism for the FBI’s purposes is referenced in U.S. Code at 18 U.S.C. 2331(5), and is defined as activities: Involving acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; Appearing to be intended to: Intimidate or coerce a civilian population; Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or Affect the conduct of a government ... //

What occurred Sunday is also not an isolated incident; since the November 2023 murder of a Jewish man, Paul Kessler, in nearby Thousand Oaks by pro-Hamas agitator Loay Alnaji during a so-called protest there have been violent demonstrations throughout Southern California by a coordinated group of terroristic, antisemitic thugs. Alnaji's Muslim Student Association group at Moorpark College proudly attends some of these intimidation rallies around Los Angeles, and we know that there is coordination going on nationwide. That makes this a federal issue that should be vigorously investigated by the US Department of Justice, but they're instead worrying about prosecuting pro-life grandmas who protest outside abortion clinics and doubling down on political intimidation by continuing to work to identify and indict Americans who were exercising their First Amendment rights on January 6. //

The public must know who has been calling the shots and who's been telling law enforcement officers to stand down and allow domestic terrorism to flourish. If it's been politicians calling the shots, that practice must end. Police chiefs need to know that they have the authority to do their jobs without political interference, and the Jewish community needs the reassurance that they will be protected.

Atrox
3 hours ago
I'm sure there are differing views on this but I always say, EVERYTHING is a win for the left. Vigilantism is a byproduct of their soft on crime policies and it's something they want. The more it happens, they can complain about how "something needs to be done"!!! ....

mopani Atrox
a few minutes ago
This is the desired result. The progressive left response to vigilante justice will be the suspension of civil rights, because violence. Two guesses when civil rights as we know them will be reinstated, and the first guess doesn't count. //

Random US Citizen
4 hours ago
Indeed. This is exactly what happened on the frontier in the early days of America. If there was no sheriff to be found, citizens might take it upon themselves to hang a horse thief. Because they were--like these folks in NYC--a mob, sometimes the wrong person wound up at the end of a rope. The arrival of civilization, in the form of law enforcement, courts, and jails was--for most--a welcome thing.

Here we see the opposite effect. The decline and fall, as it were. The courts are no longer working to decide the guilt of accused, they are now firmly on the side of the criminals. Law enforcement, whether willingly or no, is no longer able to enforce the law. Bereft of the protection of the society that they are a part of, citizens are resorting to vigilantism again.

You can expect this to get significantly worse unless these places reverse direction.

My advice: invest in lead. //

Douglas Proudfoot
4 hours ago
As every Montana 8th grade graduate knows, the absence of law and order gives rise to vigilantes. In Fall, 1863, a gang of Road Agents murdered perhaps 100 people in the gold fields of Montana. In January, 1864, vigilantes hung 25 of them. The outlaw leader, Henry Plummer, was the elected sheriff of Bannack, MT. Vigilantes hung him too.

The prosecution team destroyed exculpatory evidence supporting one of the most basic defenses available to President Trump in response to the politically motivated charges in this case. The Special Counsel’s Office has wrongfully alleged that President Trump was aware of the contents of boxes in August 2022, where those boxes were packed by others in the White House and moved to Florida in January 2021. The fact that the allegedly classified documents were buried in boxes and comingled with President Trump’s personal effects from his first term in office strongly supported the defense argument that he lacked knowledge and culpable criminal intent with respect to the documents at issue. Any proximity between allegedly classified documents and other dated materials from years before the move, such as letters and newspapers, would have further strengthened this argument. The prosecution team’s instructions to agents who executed the raid essentially acknowledged these propositions, and directed the agents to take care to document the location of both seized items and potentially privileged materials.

However, the agents disregarded those instructions. The government was more interested in staging—and leaking—manipulated photographs to the press than preserving key exculpatory evidence that has now been lost forever. Trump, ECF No. 48-1.2 The agents did not maintain the order of the documents, and they did not take photographs that would have served as alternative evidence of the documents’ sequence in each box. In July 2023, the agents disclosed this fact during a meeting with prosecutors from the Special Counsel’s Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”). But the Office did not timely disclose the notes from that meeting for almost a full year. Indeed, they persisted in that suppression, notwithstanding that the notes were responsive to an October 2023 discovery request from President Trump, while urging the Court to rush to trial based on false assurances that they were in compliance with their discovery obligations.

In hearings during March and April 2024, the Special Counsel’s Office misrepresented to the Court that the pre-raid sequence of the documents was intact. Only after an evidence inspection by counsel for President Trump’s co-defendants revealed the extent of the problem did the Office disclose in a May 3, 2024 filing that the documents were not intact as had been claimed previously. Vague language in that submission and corresponding additional discovery demands from President Trump caused these due process violations to further unravel.

Something as big, complex, and interactive as a major city, if it is going to be livable, requires predictability and control. The citizens of our cities have to know that every morning they will be able to go to work unimpeded, to do their jobs, to go home again; they have to know that their children are safe walking or riding the bus to school, that they can go to a store without worrying about a flash mob showing up to loot the place. //

And while I am and always will be an advocate of minimal government, this is one of the government's few truly legitimate roles: To protect the liberty and property of the citizens. In that, the government of these cities has failed. //

the blame can only be placed on the elected officials in those cities, the ones who make policy - and, yes, on the voters who elected them.

In 1919, in his poem "The Second Coming," W.B. Yeats wrote:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Coordinated attacks on SCOTUS’s integrity, led by Democrats and their allies in the corporate media, try to deceive Americans into believing partisans hijacked the highest court in the land and ideologically fractured it into near-dysfunction. The prominence of unanimous opinions and even more unanimous judgments not only discredits this notion but suggests a far more concerning narrative about the politicization of lower courts.

Since its inception, the Supreme Court has wielded its authority to deliver decisions rooted in bench agreement. In recent years, especially, justices “defied critics” with “historic unanimity” on cases that circuit, appeals, and state supreme courts decided in defiance of the Constitution. Of the 32 cases already decided in the 2023 term, 21 of the judgments were agreed upon by all of the presiding justices. Many of them signaled justices’ concern that lower courts abused their ruling power to violate the Constitution. //

The Supreme Court’s recent string of unanimous decisions not only serves as a reminder that corporate media are deliberately deceptive, but also suggests that lower courts are abusing their power to achieve partisan and, more importantly, unconstitutional results.

Causing a false entry to be made in a company’s records is a misdemeanor offense in New York, subject to a two-year statute of limitations. The statute says, however, that if the false business entry was made for the purpose of concealing the commission of, or intent to commit, “another crime,” then it is a felony offense, which has a longer statute of limitations. //

Although this was a state prosecution, Bragg brought in Matthew Colangelo, a high-ranking official from the Justice Department, to serve as lead prosecutor in the case. Colangelo previously had served as acting associate attorney general, the third-highest position within DOJ. //

Third, although the indictment alleged that Trump caused a false business record to be entered on the company’s books for the purpose of concealing the commission of, or intent to commit, “another crime,” the indictment didn’t say what that other crime was. And Bragg refused to say what it was when asked about it during a press conference.

Trump’s legal team filed a motion for a bill of particulars, asking Merchan to compel the state to disclose what the other crime was so that Trump’s lawyers could prepare his defense adequately. Merchan refused.

Indeed, it was not until the charge conference shortly before closing arguments that the prosecution team disclosed its speculations about what that other crime might be. And it was not until the prosecutor gave his closing argument—after Trump’s lawyer already had made his and sat down—that he finally said anything to the jury about what the other crime was. //

Fifth, Merchan’s pretrial ruling severely limited what Brad Smith—a former member of the Federal Election Commission and one of the nation’s leading authorities on federal campaign finance laws—could say from the witness stand. Smith was prepared to testify that Trump’s $130,000 payment to Cohen to reimburse the lawyer for the payment to Daniels was a personal expense, not a campaign expense, which didn’t violate campaign finance laws.

Indeed, Smith would have testified that if Trump had paid this money out of his campaign coffers rather than out of his own pocket, that would have been a federal campaign finance violation. Merchan wouldn’t allow Smith to say any of this from the witness stand. His testimony was going to be so limited that the Trump legal team decided it was worthless to call him as a witness, and so they didn’t. //

Eighth, there is a strong argument that neither Bragg as the DA nor Merchan as the judge had jurisdiction to put anyone on trial—much less a former president—for alleged violations of federal campaign finance laws. Nothing in the Federal Election Campaign Act gives state court prosecutors and judges jurisdiction over such matters.

And, according to a 2023 memorandum of understanding between the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department, the FEC “has exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of the federal campaign finance laws” and the Justice Department “has exclusive jurisdiction of criminal enforcement of the federal campaign finance laws, including related criminal offenses.”

Here, both the FEC and DOJ investigated the matter and declined to pursue it.

Due to the sheer volume of the complaints, Pryor deemed the situation exceptional and ordered the clerk to post the order to the website rather than attempting to send a copy to each complainant.

Pryor also notes that four of the complaints received since May 16th have been considered and dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence of any misconduct. //

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 @McAdooGordon
·
Nothing Judge Cannon has done is judicial misconduct.

Falsely accusing a judge of misconduct & encouraging others to do so IS misconduct by a lawyer, however, in most jurisdictions.

Glenn Kirschner @glennkirschner2
Judge Aileen Cannon's Pro-Trump Bias Is Showing: Here's a step-by-step guide to filing a Judicial Misconduct Complaint with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Because #JusticeMatters https://youtu.be/0MXVfiTa3KM?si=if3qYyfWIHZhUA2q
4:46 PM · May 12, 2024. //

Donner’s Party
8 hours ago
When Merchan disregards Due Process, the Rights of the Defendant to Call Witnesses, on his behalf, doesn’t even insist that the prosecution name the crime, and prods the jury to find the defendant guilty for any reason out of four,(without any chance they won’t find him guilty), he’s a hero!
Cannon insists that the prosecution abide by the laws, that THEY are sworn to enforce, and SHE’s the Villain!
Yeah, we are ripe, bring on the Rapture. //

Fishin'withFredo
5 hours ago
Over 1000 complaints since May 16? Orchestrated is an understatement. Cannon has been the only objective judge in this entire fiasco.