In affirming the decision of the District Court, the Seventh Circuit characterized the issue as follows:

These claims hinge on one question: what is “the right to vote”? In McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago, the Supreme Court told us that the fundamental right to vote does not extend to a claimed right to cast an absentee ballot by mail…. And unless a state’s actions make it harder to cast a ballot at all, the right to vote is not at stake…. Considering that definition, Indiana’s absentee-voting regime does not affect Plaintiffs’ right to vote and does not violate the Constitution. In the upcoming election, all Hoosiers, including Plaintiffs, can vote on election day, or during the early-voting period, at polling places all over Indiana. The court recognizes the difficulties that might accompany in-person voting during this time. But Indiana’s absentee-voting laws are not to blame. It’s the pandemic, not the State, that might affect Plaintiffs’ determination to cast a ballot.

The application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted in part, and the district court’s September 18, 2020 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.

In no uncertain terms that means that Judge Childs order will not be enforced until after the Sixth Circuit has heard and decided the appeal of her Order by election officials in South Carolina. That won’t be happening in only four weeks — but just in case it does, the order won’t go into effect if upheld until disposition on a petition for writ of certiorari is heard and disposed of in the Supreme Court — and that is CERTAIN to not happen in the next four weeks.

Over the past four weeks we have seen a slew of federal district court and appellate court decisions impacting the terms and enforcement of state election laws in several states across the country.

As a general proposition, efforts are being undertaken by litigants in numerous jurisdictions to claim that the risk to voters created by COVID 19 is such that (m)any state election laws which impose limits on the ability of voters to cast ballots without having to go to a polling location, or which limit the time- frame within which remotely-cast ballots can be received in order to be counted, constitute violations of the right to vote under the terms of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. //

So you can see where the lower court judges are finding their “justification for rewriting election rules more to the liking of plaintiffs who — in every case I’ve looked at — are Democrat party interest groups.

Summary:

There are good reasons for Durham delaying indictments: Mueller SCO criminality and direct Clinton ties to Spygate.
Durham is almost certainly pursuing conspiracy and RICO charges against the Spygate conspirators and their funders.
The political implications of deferring indictments until after 3 November could actually favor the President.
As a chaser, a lack of indictments does not preclude a guilty plea or two before 3 November. That’s entirely possible, too.

The end.

Over the past several weeks, we have begun to see decisions come out of the Courts where these challenges have been filed, and the level of Judicial “Solomonic Wisdom” that pervades the outcomes is simply breathtaking.

I cannot even begin to catalog the patchwork quilt of decisions and justifications that have flowed out of Courts — and I’m not even referring to changes to state election laws hastily adopted in Democrat-controlled states.

There was never an investigation of General Flynn. There was a file opened. But nothing was ever done according to Agent Barnett. And nothing would have ever been done if Donald Trump had not won the election — according to Page and Strzok.

The opening of an investigation of General Flynn — “Crossfire Razor” — was the “insurance policy” in the event Donald Trump was elected. Page, Papadolopous, and Manafort were not going to be in the Trump Administration — all had left the campaign by the fall of 2016, so they would not have access to classified information or otherwise be helpful to the Russians. But Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Page knew Flynn would be in the Administration. Having Crossfire Razor open BEFORE the election meant the FBI could continue investigating the Trump Administration after candidate Trump became President-Elect Trump, and then after the inauguration as well, without having to say they only opened the investigation after Trump’s victory.

Agent Barnett said there wasn’t much “predicate” to support the investigation of General Flynn, yet on August 15, 2016, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok have already concluded that General Flynn has connections to Russia and Putin that meant he should not have access to classified information.

It is a violation of FBI policy to open a counterintelligence case file on a US Person with no present intention to conduct a counterintelligence investigation of the US Person. It might even be a crime.

And yet that is exactly what Special Agent Barnett says FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok did with regard to General Michael Flynn, decorated U.S. war hero.

The Illinois GOP picked a losing argument to make which had nothing to do with Jacobsen. //

The difference in Pennsylvania was that the Plaintiffs there challenged the MANNER in which Gov. Wolf exercised his authority under police powers to curtail liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court examined the justifications and evidence which Gov. Wolf claimed supported the liberty restrictions in his Orders, and Judge Stickman found them to be insufficient.

The Illinois GOP did not ask the Court to do that — the Illinois GOP asked for an Injunction before any evidence was gathered on the subject of why/how Gov. Pritzker arrived at his decisions to impose lockdown conditions in the manner in which he did.

When Oracle sued Google over Android, many assumed the database giant would target code Google lifted from the Apache Foundation's open source Java incarnation, Project Harmony. But Oracle just pinpointed six pages of Google code, claiming they were "directly copied" from copyrighted Oracle material, and according to Apache, this code is not part of Harmony.

"Recent reports on various blogs have attributed to the ASF a number of the source files identified by Oracle as ones that they believe infringe on their copyrights," the Foundation says in a Friday blog post. "Even though the code in question has an Apache license, it is not part of Harmony."

Lawyers defending Google (NSDQ: GOOG) against a patent and copyright lawsuit brought by Oracle are trying desperately to keep a particular engineer’s e-mail out of the public eye-but it looks like they’re unlikely to succeed.

The e-mail, from Google engineer Tim Lindholm to the head of Google’s Android division, Andy Rubin, recommends that Google negotiate for a license to Java rather than pick an alternative system.

The key portion of the email was read aloud from the bench by U.S. District Judge William Alsup during a July 21 hearing. The second paragraph of the email reads: “What we’ve actually been asked to do by Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin] is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome. We’ve been over a bunch of these and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need.” //

Now Google is taking action to have that email, and Alsup’s reference to it in his order, thrown out of the public record. In a letter dated July 28, Van Nest wrote to Alsup, explaining that Google had handed over the email (which was actually a draft) inadvertently, and then later realized the email was subject to attorney-client privilege and never should have been disclosed. Oracle’s disclosure of the document was “improper,” argued Van Nest, and the email never should have been made public.

As reported earlier, former NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg had raised and spent a reported 20 million dollars, in paying off the fines of over 30,000 Florida felons.

Many, including Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, thought that the move was likely illegal and therefore, deserved investigation.

The billionaire New Yorker is in for some bad news as Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody has now recommended an investigation to be conducted by both the FBI and FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement). Read the letter below

https://www.redstate.com/scotthounsell/2020/09/23/bloomberg-buys-votes-pays-fines-of-thousands-of-florida-felons/

Andrew Weissmann is a legend in his own mind. He’s been hailed as a crusading avenger against the Mafia in New York before moving on to Washington DC and leading the campaign to tackle boardroom corruption on corporate America when he was picked to lead a DOJ task force prosecuting cases connected to the collapse of ENRON. But the “legend” of Weissmann has always been tarnished by the “ethics” — or lack thereof — of Weissmann. This was nowhere better displayed than in the reversal of one of his most famous ENRON scandal victories, when the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in United States v. Arthur Anderson that Weissmann’s jury instructions that he convinced the District Court Judge to give failed to state a crime. Yes, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens agreed with Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia that Andrew Weissmann didn’t know what he was doing. //

But in 2011, Weissman left DOJ and became General Counsel of the FBI. Note the symmetry to that date — that is the same time that Aaron Zebley left DOJ to be Mueller’s Chief of Staff. In the two roles, Zebly had the much better of the “action” while Weissmann was left tending to internal legal matters for the FBI. And, more significantly, Weissmann would have reported to Zebly in the chain of command.

So the former FBI agent and line AUSA was now in a position of authority over vaunted DOJ “ENRON Champion” Andrew Weissmann. Weissmann returned to DOJ when Mueller departed, but Zebley got the invitation to the lucrative partnership at WilmerHale.

So, when Weissmann was given the offer to join the Special Counsel’s team, it’s likely that he was not all that happy to look up and find Aaron Zebley once again looking down at him in the Chain-of-Command and holding his reins.

And it was Aaron Zebley who Mueller asked to sit beside him at his appearance before Congress and assist in answering questions about the Mueller Report — not Andrew Weissmann. //

kirkeidman
a day ago
Mmmmmmmmm?

Perhaps the root problem was basically no EVIDENCE that anything was wrong?

junkbondtrader41
a day ago
So there were tactical errors in your fundamentally illegitimate "investigation" based on a "crime" that never happened??

Good to know!

BoDeen3417 junkbondtrader41
a day ago
When has lack of a crime ever stopped Weismann from prosecuting?

the fact that Weissmann would have pushed for that language to be in a jury instruction says all I need to know about him:

“even if [Arthur Anderson] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [Arthur Anderson] guilty.”

That pretty much accurately describes third-world “show trial” requirements. That’s how people end up in Chinese prisons. //

The Supreme Court Justices who joined in rejecting “Weissman’s Law” were:

Chief Justice Rehnquist — wrote the opinion.

Justice Scalia

Justice Thomas

Justice O’Connor

Justice Kennedy

Justice Souter

Justice Stevens

Justice Ginsburg

Justice Breyer

Not a single Justice wrote a concurring opinion. Not one wrote separately to say “I agree with the outcome, but I disagree with the opinion of the Chief Justice for the following reasons….”

Every Justice REJECTED Weissmann’s view of “criminality” without hesitation.

Earlier today, Democrat Leaders of House Committees released a letter sent by them to Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, asking him to initiate an “emergency” investigation of the Durham investigation because …. well, I’m not sure what their justification is.

If, as is reported, it’s over the suggestion that Attorney General Barr has asked Durham to produce an interim report prior to the election, that claim is going nowhere.

The IG is not a “super-supervisor” of all things DOJ, including the Attorney General. If he was he’d be … the Attorney General.

But the IG does review compliance with explicit DOJ policies, and the review the Democrats seem to be calling for is likely to end with the actual text of the policy they think the AG is preparing to “violate” by calling for an interim report. //

1-7.400 – Disclosure of Information Concerning Ongoing Criminal, Civil, or Administrative Investigations

A. Any communication by DOJ personnel with a member of the media relating to a pending investigation or case must be approved in advance by the appropriate United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General…

B. DOJ generally will not confirm the existence of or otherwise comment about ongoing investigations….

C. When the community needs to be reassured that the appropriate law enforcement agency is investigating a matter, or where release of information is necessary to protect the public safety, comments about or confirmation of an ongoing investigation may be necessary, subject to the approval requirement in subparagraph A.

Little used statutes come into use when factual circumstances warrant their use. //

Suddenly feeling exposed, those promoters have gone underground.

And the rioting has stopped as quickly as it seemed to start. Even in Portland.

The sacrosanct "career prosecutors" are liberals -- shocking.

This decision would have never come from a panel with Obama and Hillary Clinton Appointees

Stevens’ attorney, famed Iran-Contra defense attorney Brendan Sullivan, understood that Stevens could not stand for re-election Alaska with the indictment still hanging over his head. Sullivan also likely understood that the government had rushed to secure the indictment ahead of the DOJ that precludes indicting a person running for office less than 90 days prior to the election.

In recognition of those two facts, Brendan Sullivan informed the prosecutors and the Court that Stevens would be asserting his rights to a fair and speedy trial under the Constitution and the federal Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(c)(1), which states:

In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.

Sullivan and Stevens demanded that his trial begins at the earliest possible date and that he would not waive his statutory “Speedy Trial Act” rights to have the trial begin not more than 70 calendar days after his initial appearance.

That tactical decision meant the defense had less than two full months to review and analyze all the evidence in the government’s case, and to prepare to present evidence of their own in Stevens’ defense. But Brenden Sullivan had read the situation correctly, the prosecutors had hastily assembled their indictment to file it prior to the 90-day limit, and their case was not organized. All the witnesses had not been interviewed, all the evidence hadn’t been gathered, and all the reports had not yet been written. But by filing the indictment they started the clocking running on a very short window of time within which all that would need to be accomplished AND have the case prepared for trial where the government has the burden of proof and has to go first. //

This is why the basic rule for federal prosecutors is ALWAYS have your case ready for trial on the day you seek an indictment. Never count on the possibility that you will have additional time to build your case after the case is indicted by doing things after the indictment that should have been done prior to the indictment.

I have always wondered why more defense attorneys didn’t take his calculated risk to force the government to go to trial quickly. It probably has more to do with the “fear” of their clients , and the “sound” advice of a defense attorney to give the government more time to get ready by waiving your right to a trial within 70 days.

Pushing for an indictment from Durham before he’s fully prepared to take a case to trial is a path to a potentially unhappy outcome. Durham understands that.

Would be senseless to prosecute a case with evidence that will result in the conviction being thrown out.

Another subject of the online “Greek Chorus” of former federal prosecutors gives voice to “outrage” over the suggestion that Attorney General Barr is asking US Attorney Durham to produce an “interim report” of his investigation to date into the origins of the Russia Hoax investigation. The enterprise was initiated by the Obama Administration and carried over into the Trump Administration by members of the Anti-Trump “Resistance” embedded into the federal government, later spearheaded by the Robert Mueller-headed Special Counsel’s Office.

Before we get to their lamentations, let’s first lay a foundation for considering their hypocrisy.

Speculation over Nora Dannehy's resignation ignores the possibility her role was limited -- but crucial.