USA 2024 Elections Thread

grarpamp grarpamp at
Mon Nov 21 18:49:56 PST 2022

> Donald J Trump Won The US 2020 Presidential Election
> Another Major US "News" Entity Confirms Itself To Be Fully 100% Corrupt...

Just like clockwork, the minute Trump announced his
2024 candidacy, just like they did in for 2016 and thereafter,
Democrats launch another totally bogus "prosecution"
"investigation" "special counel" attacks against Trump.
Like him or not, at this point the man should just be given an
8yr presidency as reward for all the crap he's had to endure.

The Lords Of War: The Perils Facing Trump, Garland, & Smith In
Washington's Legal Arms Race

Below is my column in The Hill on the appointment of a special counsel
to investigate former President Donald Trump. All of the three main
players - Trump, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Special Counsel
Jack Smith - will face immediate challenges in the legal arm’s race
unfolding in Washington.

Here is the column:

There seemed to be enough torpedoes in the water in Washington this
week that you could walk across the Potomac without getting your feet
wet. On Capitol Hill, the new House Republican majority announced a
series of subpoena-ready investigations of President Biden and
administration officials. At the Justice Department, Attorney General
Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel to investigate former
President Trump for possible crimes ranging from the 2020 election to
the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot to the Mar-a-Lago documents

It was all reminiscent of the movie “The Lord of War,” in which a
fictional arms dealer warns that “the problem with gunrunners going to
war is that there is no shortage of ammunition.” The same appears true
of rival government officials having no shortage of subpoenas.

In this atmosphere of politically and mutually assured destruction,
there are some immediate threats for the three main combatants:
Attorney General Garland

When he announced the appointment of Jack Smith to investigate Trump,
Garland explained that “based on recent developments, including the
former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president
in the next election, and the sitting president’s stated intention to
be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public
interest to appoint a special counsel.”

In making that case for a Trump special counsel, however, Garland may
have made a case against himself for refusing to appoint a Biden
special counsel in the Hunter Biden scandal. Garland’s department is
investigating potential wrongdoing that could involve the other
referenced candidate, President Biden, in the Hunter Biden matter.
That investigation should be looking at numerous alleged references to
the president using code names such as “the Big Guy” in the context of
receiving percentages on foreign deals and other perks. Yet Garland
has refused to appoint a special counsel in an investigation that not
only could prove highly embarrassing to the president but, in the view
of some of us, could implicate him as well.

Congressional Democrats repeatedly voted to block an investigation of
this alleged multimillion-dollar influence peddling by the Biden
family. House Republicans are now poised to look into these foreign
deals — and how the Justice Department may have stymied or slowed any
investigation before the 2020 election.

While the special counsel appointment helps insulate Garland from
claims about the use of his department for political purposes on any
Trump charges, he may soon face new challenges, including possible
contempt referrals if Biden officials or Democrats refuse to supply
information or testimony to Republican House investigators. Garland
has sharply departed from prior cases in which the Justice Department
largely refused to prosecute such contempt referrals; he has been very
active in pursuing Trump officials who failed to cooperate with
Congress. He now may be asked to show the same willingness to pursue
those who obstruct or defy House Republican investigations.
Former President Trump

The greatest threat clearly faces Trump himself. His announced
intention to run for the presidency in 2024 may have expedited the
appointment of a special counsel. With the expectation of a possible
indictment, Trump may have wanted to frame the optics as a vendetta
against a declared Biden opponent before his administration took any
major step toward prosecution. Instead, it likely sealed the need for
a special counsel.

Trump already has declared the move to be political and says he will
not “partake in” an investigation.

A special counsel could make fast work of controversies such as
Mar-a-Lago, which have been investigated for months and already have
secured grand jury testimony. For Trump, having a special counsel in
control, rather than an attorney general, may prove even more
precarious. Some of the potential charges for unlawful transfer or
possession of classified material historically have resulted in
relatively minor charges. If this investigation produces the basis for
an obstruction charge or misdemeanors, Garland might have been
inclined to use his discretion to forgo prosecution and avoid
political disruption or questions of bias. In contrast, after the
expense and effort to create his office, a special counsel may feel
less inclined to overlook a chargeable offense. The majority of people
charged by former special counsel Robert Mueller faced relatively
minor charges and served short terms in jail.

Trump also will face practical barriers. Prosecutors usually start
with the low-hanging fruit in an organization, to coerce people to
cooperate by threatening criminal charges. On issues such as
obstruction, Trump did not allegedly act alone; there were staff and
lawyers who made what the FBI claims were knowingly false or
misleading representations. Those individuals must now be viewed by
Trump’s counsel as having potential conflicts of interest, including
his former counsel. The only way to avoid conflicts or vulnerabilities
is to assemble a largely new staff that was not involved in either the
Jan. 6 or Mar-a-Lago episodes.

That is the difference between “partaking” in a personal excursion and
a criminal investigation: The latter does not depend on your
Special Counsel Smith

Smith faces the unenviable task of investigating a presidential
candidate less than two years before the election. Given the advanced
stage of prior investigations, he could bring charges before Sept. 5,
2024 (or roughly 60 days before the election under Justice Department
guidelines for election year filings). It is unlikely, however, that a
charge against Trump could be tried in that time.

However, Smith’s first test will be to avoid the initial mistakes of a
predecessor, Mueller.

Like Smith, Mueller was considered a natural choice as special
counsel, given his extensive experience as a career prosecutor.
However, Mueller’s investigation was undermined by his selection of a
team — starting with his top aide, Andrew Weissmann, a controversial
prosecutor who was accused of political bias. The investigation was
further undermined by FBI personnel, including Special Agent Peter
Strzok, who was later removed from the team and fired by the Justice
Department; Strzok has since filed a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Smith can avoid tripping a similar explosive wire by selecting a team
that is defined by its prior professional expertise, not its prior
political views or associations.

He also needs to be wary of creative avenues to indict Trump. Smith
was part of the prosecution team that convicted former Virginia
Governor Bob McDonnell (R) on federal corruption charges in 2014. The
Supreme Court unanimously overturned that conviction as having
stretched the law beyond its breaking point. If Smith is going to be
the first prosecutor to indict a former president, he needs to do so
with unimpeachable evidence of an unchallengeable crime.

Only one thing is certain in any of this: It will not end well.

With both sides loading up staff and subpoenas, the start of the 2024
campaign season has all of the makings of an utter bloodletting. There
will be ample support for both sides to fulfill their respective
narratives — and no shortage of legal weapons — in this political war
of attrition.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list