On Tuesday, the announcement was made that CEO of Mike Lindell was preparing two counter-lawsuits against Dominion Voting Systems, claiming (1) Dominion violated 1st amendment rights of all Trump Supporters; and (2) Dominion engaged in racketeering, breaking RICO laws. Lindell confirmed Alan Dershowitz had joined his legal team.
“Mike Lindell declares Alan Dershowitz has joined team, will not lead but will defend 1st amendment freedom of speech rights,” Wayne Dupree posted about Dershowitz.
Lindell has been living in “undisclosed locations” because of safety concerns, he said.
The MyPillow CEO said he hadn’t been back to his home in Minnesota in two months.
He told “The Domenick Nati Show” he has teams investigating “cancel culture,” Twitter, Facebook.
“During an interview with former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon on Monday, Lindell said he’s counter-suing Dominion in response to lawsuits over alleged defamation by the company in an election fraud debate,” OAN Reported.
Lindell has been on the War Room previously and announced his plans to defend President Donald J. Trump and restore election integrity before the next big election in 2022. He has repeatedly said he was not going to give up.
“During a Monday appearance on The Domenick Nati Show, Lindell announced that he had hired a team of investigators to look into Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and others that he believes are guilty of “criminal activity.” He said that he initially believed Zuckerberg’s activities were only “immoral” before his investigators allegedly discovered unspecified “criminal things” that the Facebook CEO had taken part in.
“Mark, you’re going to jail along with Jack Dorsey; you know you are,” said Lindell. “I mean, these guys are sick. What is wrong with them? … Jack Dorsey is involved in a lot of evil. They took my Twitter, they were running my Twitter, not just take it down.”
Dominion, a U.S.-based voting machine supplier, is suing MyPillow and Mr. Lindell for $1.3 billion in light of the latter alleging it helped rig the 2020 presidential election against Mr. Trump.
Trump allies Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sidney Powell are named in similar civil suits, while several news outlets have retracted claims about Dominion after receiving legal warnings from its lawyers.
Lindell, unlike others, insists that someone was posting on Twitter account and posing as him, and he has said in the past he believed that Twitter was posting information on his account that was false.
“My friends were calling up saying ‘Mike, are you ok with the election now?'” Lindell said. “I go ‘no.’ Well, here they were, retweeting things, making it look like Mike Lindell was ok with stuff.”
Lindell is determined to win this for America, and restore election integrity at a great personal sacrifice.
“I absolutely move around to undisclosed locations,” he said.
That kind of commitment is absolutely worth buying an awesome pillow from him.
As the bogus impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump begins this week, New York legislators are pushing to pass the “No Citizen is Above the Law” bill that is aimed at making it easy for Trump or any future president to avoid state prosecution if accused of a crime.
Of course, it all depends on an accuser’s definition of “wrongdoing” because that definition could change more often than your underwear in the Wokety Woke Woke world we now live in.
The bill was proposed by state Senator Michael Gianaris (D-Queens) and Assemblyman Nick Perry (D-Brooklyn) and it is determined to stop the statute of limitations so that an angry mob can go after a former president because the statute of limitations clock will be frozen in time during the years a president sits in office. Is it Constitutional? Probably not, but since when has that ever stopped a partisan Democrat?
During a president’s term, he is immune from arrest or prosecution no different from members of Congress when Congress is in session. This is based on a couple of Department of Justice (DOJ) memos from 1973 and 2000, both of which interpret the US Constitution, but both of which also have never been tested in the US Supreme Court.
Perry and Gianaris both argue that a president should not use the time they are in office to avoid prosecution because the statute of limitations expires. In other words, a rule that has been around since time began but is not appreciated for one man, in particular, shall not continue to stand.
“Any president who breaks the law should be held accountable without regard to the time they spend in office. As our nation prepares for an unprecedented second impeachment trial, we must close the loophole that allows Presidents to escape culpability by exploiting statutes of limitations due to Presidential immunity,” Gianaris said.
The New York Attorney General Letitia James, known for going after the NRA, because, well, obviously, and Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. are looking into Trump’s businesses.
James not only $750,000 in public money that she didn’t need for her campaign back in 2017, but she spent $500,000 of it on Election Day itself when she dumped money she would otherwise have been obligated to return. James called the National Rifle Association a terrorist organization even though there is not an ounce of proof to say that.
In 2015 Vance refused to prosecute Harvey Weinstein despite having an audio file of the former Hollywood mogul admitting to sexual assault, but suddenly he became woke enough to want to go after Donald Trump for business dealings that if it goes the way everything else that’s been thrown at the man does will end up being absolutely nothing to the charges.
District attorneys in the United States have become corrupted by progressive politics. DAs like Kim Jong Foxx in Chicago who suddenly dropped all charges against hate crime hoaxer Jussie Smollett, Kim Jong Gardner who failed to go after the rioters who broke through a locked gate onto private property but went after the McCluskeys who defended themselves instead, and Larry Krasner who is a disaster in Philadelphia, most of them funded by George Soros who is hell-bent on having American laws relaxed or even thrown by the wayside by prosecutors no longer prosecuting for certain types of crimes but going after innocent people like the Mclusky’s in Missouri.
The bill is expected to pass the New York Senate this week and will be voted on in the Assembly at any time.
Alan Dershowitz, Constitutional law professor, and Trump legal advisor said that the law is more-than-likely legal, so long as they don’t freeze the statute of limitations on a criminal prosecution, which is precisely what the bill is designed to do.
Republican lawmakers have stood up and accused Perry and Gianaris of political showboating.
“This is just a pointless political headline-grab that’s out of their jurisdiction and ignores more pressing concerns happening right in front of their faces,” said Assemblyman Will Barclay (R-Syracuse).
“It’s unfortunate they’ve spent far less energy reining-in executive powers or issuing a subpoena to the sitting governor,” added Barclay, referring to Cuomo’s terrible job at handling the coronavirus on top of what many consider murder in the nursing home death scandal where the governor forced COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes that caused a lot of deaths.
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives impeached President Donald Trump a second time, 232-197, for “incitement of insurrection” in the aftermath of a violent mob attack on the US Capitol last week.
The House made accusations against the president of engaging “in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States,” and pointedly noted Trump’s statements to his supporters at a rally held at the Ellipse right before they marched to the Capitol building after Trump asked them to march “peacefully.” The Democrats always leave that part out.
“There, he reiterated false claims that ‘we won this election, and we won it by a landslide,'” the impeachment article reads.
“He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol, such as: ‘if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.'”
Legal authorities like Alan Dershowitz apply the “Brandenberg Test” to speech to determine whether inflammatory statements are protected under the First Amendment, or could be restricted and considered “incitement.”
The Cornell Law School provides a two-part test that is derived in Brandenberg vs. Ohio (1969),determines that the government may prohibit speech if it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a Trump appointee at the US Agency for Global Media who has experience prosecuting protesters for incitement, wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece Sunday that Trump’s “critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans,” but William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution said that alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense.”
Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News senior judicial analyst argued that “the essence of criminal incitement is immediacy.”
“On January 6, because there was time for more speech to rebut what the president said, his words are protected,” Judge Napolitano explains. “He cannot be prosecuted or even sued for them.”
Meanwhile, Director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, Ilya Shapiro, said that the legal standard isn’t as relevant because “impeachment is inherently a political judgment.” In other words, just like the first impeachment of this president, the Democrats’ articles of impeachment didn’t meet the standard of any crime, but impeachment is a political process. The words are “high crimes and misdemeanors” but the Democrats get away with it by the process being political while at the same time they lie to the American people and say that the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors. The Founding Fathers never dreamed that such degenerate, low life people would be elected to Congress. It just so happens that crooked members of Congress can impeach a president who did absolutely nothing wrong.
“The standard for impeachment — high crimes and misdemeanors — is whatever Congress makes it out to be,” Shapiro said. “But fundamentally, it relates to a serious breach of the public trust. Not all crimes are impeachable offenses. If the president was jaywalking and got a ticket, that’s not impeachable. And not all impeachable offenses are crimes.” Trust me, the Democrats would impeach Trump for jaywalking. They impeached him for a normal diplomatic phone call with the president of Ukraine, and they impeached him again, this time for incitement when there is no evidence he incited a riot.
William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argued as well that a sitting president’s actions can be impeachable, even if they aren’t criminal.
“There are actions that, while not strictly speaking illegal, are violations of the responsibilities that someone undertakes when he enters into a particular office of trust and confidence,” Galston said. “The article of impeachment should be read – this is my bottom line – as accusing the president of violating his oath of office by doing what he did. That’s a constitutional standard, but not necessarily a legal standard.”
Except the president didn’t violate his oath of office. He simply asked supporters to “peacefully” march to the Capitol building and let their voices be heard. How many past presidents called for marches? How many members of Congress called for marches? The president is still a citizen and he has the right to ask for people to peacefully march, and that is exactly what he did. He didn’t incite a riot.
In fact, the FBI has now confirmed that the riot was planned days in advance by leftists in ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter. The FBI issued a warning a day before the Capitol riot that extremists were planning an uprising in Washington, a plot the schemers described as “war” to concur with the Congressional certification of Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory, that he stole. Does that sound like Trump supporters? Trump held about 60 rallies and not a single time where Trump’s supporters the cause of violence.
“As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information indicating calls for violence,” reads a section of the report, according to the Post, which goes on to describe detailed plans for the attack: “An online thread discussed specific calls for violence to include stating ‘Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled.” Does that sound like Trump supporters? Not on your life.
So then I guess Chuck Schumer should be expelled from the Senate over the time he publicly threatened two Supreme Court justices, which was far worse than anything Trump said on January 6.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said after the House’s impeachment vote, the “Senate process will now begin at our first regular meeting following receipt of the article from the House,” which is January 19, the day before Trump leaves office.
“Given the rules, procedures, and Senate precedents that govern presidential impeachment trials, there is simply no chance that a fair or serious trial could conclude before President-elect Biden is sworn in next week,” McConnell said in a statement Wednesday.
There is a question of if it is Constitutional to try a president once he leaves office. On January 20 at noon, Donald Trump becomes a private citizen once again. The Senate cannot try a private citizen for removal from office, because the private citizen is not in office at the time. But the Democrats will likely try Donald Trump anyway because they want to convict him so that he cannot run for office ever again.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is abounding with false statement charges against Trump campaign associates, but a Justice Department inspector general report revealed that the FBI and federal prosecutors discouraged charging witnesses under the same offense in the bureau’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Nearly every Trump campaign associate indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s sprawling Russia probe has been charged with making false statements.
But in a striking contrast, raising questions about a possible double standard, not a single person interviewed during the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation was hit with false statement charges – even though investigators believed some witnesses were untruthful.
“Somebody needs to be resolving how they exercise discretion, because a whole bunch of people are facing jail time, or flipping in one probe, and the agents openly discussed how other people in the Clinton probe could have been charged with the same offense,” former Justice Department senior official James Trusty told Fox News.
Of the six Trump campaign associates charged in Mueller’s long investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, five have been charged with violating U.S.C. 1001 — making false statements to FBI agents.
Those charged include: former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos; former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn; former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen; and former associates of Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort—Alex van der Zwaan and Rick Gates.
But according to the report released in June by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation, federal prosecutors and FBI agents told the independent watchdog that witnesses in the probe lied during interviews, but that agents and prosecutors did not pursue false statements charges.
The report revealed one exchange in February 2016 between an agent and another FBI employee not assigned to the investigation. The employee asked the agent how an interview with an unnamed witness went.
“Awesome. Lied his ass off. Went from never inside the scif [sensitive compartmented information facility] at res, to looked in when it was being constructed, to removed the trash twice, to troubleshot the secure fax with HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] a couple times, to everytime there was a secure fax with HRC. Ridic,” the agent wrote.
The employee replied: “Wouldn’t it be funny if he was the only guy charged n[sic] this deal?”
“I know. For 1001 [false statements]. Even if he said the truth and didn’t have a clearance when handling the secure fax—aint noone gonna do s—t,” the agent responded.
Another message conversation related to charging witnesses included in the report between agents, and reviewed by the inspector general stated: “What we want to do and what we’re going to be allowed to do are two different things.”
The report specifically referenced former Clinton technology aide Paul Combetta, who allegedly used the computer program “Bleachbit” to destroy thousands of Clinton’s email records, despite an order from Congress to preserve them.
“With respect to Combetta, we found his actions in deleting Clinton’s emails in violation of a Congressional subpoena and preservation order and then lying about it to the FBI to be particularly serious,” the inspector general wrote, noting that they asked prosecutors why they “chose to grant him immunity instead of charging him with obstruction of justice…or making false statements.”
The report revealed that the supervisory special agent, or SSA, in the Clinton case told the inspector general that “he believed Combetta should have been charged with false statements for lying multiple times” but also said that Combetta’s “later immunized testimony was truthful and that he was ‘fine’ with the immunity agreement.”
But Horowitz wrote in the report that he received “mixed testimony” over the potential Combetta charges.
Horowitz noted that agents on the FBI’s Midyear team, the bureau’s code word for the group of agents assigned to investigate Clinton’s use of a private email server and handling of classified information while secretary of state, decided that giving Combetta immunity was “the most expedient way” to obtain truthful information from him, and felt that prosecuting him would not “serve a federal interest.”
According to Justice Department policy, government attorneys should recommend federal prosecution if they believe that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the evidence would be sufficient to obtain a conviction unless “the prosecution would serve no federal interest; the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.”
“Saying it’s not a federal interest is pure fluff. It’s a circular argument,” Trusty, now white-collar criminal defense attorney with Ifrah Law, said. “We as the feds don’t have a federal interest? They were in the middle of a high-profile federal investigation.”
Horowitz wrote that prosecutors believed immunity was the best option, noting that a truthful Combetta testimony about the deletion of Clinton’s emails was essential to the investigation.
The inspector general ultimately found “no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations.”
But Trusty questioned the principle guiding how and when to pursue false statements charges, specifically in the context of the Mueller investigation.
“Why is there a ‘federal interest’ in Papadopoulos and Flynn and everyone associated with the Russia investigation, but nobody in the Hillary probe?” Trusty asked. “It’s a very legitimate question at this point—why are they taking radically different approaches to the lower subjects in cases for one investigation versus another?”
Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his communications with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Last week, Mueller filed a memorandum recommending a lenient sentence for him, with the possibility of no prison time, stating Flynn has offered “substantial” help to the special counsel about “several ongoing investigations,” signaling the former national security adviser’s level of cooperation throughout the probe.
Meanwhile, Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty last year to making false statements and materially false omissions to federal investigators about his meeting with an overseas professor with connections to the Russian government, completed his 14-day prison sentence on Friday. He is also required to pay a fine of $9,500 and complete 200 hours of community service.
Last month, Cohen, who pleaded guilty in August to multiple tax-related and business charges in a separate criminal investigation led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York, pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the timeline of discussions about an abandoned deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Cohen’s plea agreement with the special counsel made clear that as part of the deal, Cohen would cooperate with Mueller’s team on “any and all matters” deemed relevant. Despite his cooperation, though, federal prosecutors on Friday stated that Cohen deserved a “substantial term of imprisonment,” and argued that Cohen’s efforts to cooperate with the special counsel were “overstated.”
Van der Zwaan, who was an associate of Manafort, pleaded guilty to making false statements earlier this year and was sentenced in April to serve 30 days in prison. He was required to also pay a $20,000 fine.
The special counsel’s office declined to comment on charging decisions.
Trusty said that guilty pleas related to false statements “does not suggest a particularly successful investigation.”
“It doesn’t suggest to me that they’re making a lot of headway on the substance of their investigation, which is Russian collusion,” Trusty said. “As an ex-prosecutor, false statements are a very distant second place.”