Maybe the "System" is getting fed up with political violence by Democrats, even in Democrat states. //

🤙🏻
@ParlayKingLG
Olivia Winslow & Camryn Amy are facing 7 charges. 3 of those charges are felonies. Of those which include assault, robbery, and hate crimes against a 7 year old child. They are facing a potential 15 year sentence. The timeout generation is a complete failure.

Unauthorized security research can “cause harmful effects,” Voatz says in baffling brief.

Yesterday, in a stunning development, the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court ruled that the surveillance program revealed by Snowden was illegal and was not justified by any of the supposed cases of terrorist activity that were stopped as a result of the mass surveillance program. Perhaps what is most alarming about this ruling is the numerous government officials that testified in both courts and to Congress, denying the program even existed. //

At this point, it is important we review exactly what happened in the Snowden case. Remember, Snowden attempted to go through the proper channels to make his complaints about the program. Later, after Snowden went to the press to expose the program, US Government officials including Clapper LIED about the existence of the program. //

Edward Snowden
@Snowden
Seven years ago, as the news declared I was being charged as a criminal for speaking the truth, I never imagined that I would live to see our courts condemn the NSA's activities as unlawful and in the same ruling credit me for exposing them.

And yet that day has arrived. //

Snowden may not be a saint, but he certainly isn’t a sinner. A sin of omission (lack of options of where he could safely go) versus a sin of commission (intentionally going to Russia to deliver covert information) are two completely different things. Snowden may be guilty of the first, but he certainly is not guilty of the second. It is time we put away the Government’s case against him and allow for us to bring him home, not to a hero’s welcome but to one of apology for Intelligence Officials not heeding his warnings and creating the conditions for the last 7 years of his life. It is time to #PardonSnowden.

Two things can be true about the Rittenhouse situation.

The judges ruled 2-1 that the House of Representatives must pass a new law to make its subpoenas enforceable.

conducting the interview at the CIA facility is an interesting decision. Why not question him at DOJ or FBI HQ? //

DOJ and the FBI HQ are in Washington DC. CIA Headquarters is in Langley, Virginia.

If you are geographically challenged, you can read the distinction as “United States District Court for the District of Columbia” v. “United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.” If John Brennan offered any false answers to the investigators during the interview, the venue for that “false statement” crime is in the EDVA, not in DC federal court. //

let’s take a moment to address the whole “Target” v. “Subject” v. “Witness” construct the press is so happy to report about.

Labeling an individual a “target” has a clear meaning in federal criminal prosecutions. It refers to someone about whom the prosecutor believes there is already sufficient admissible evidence to seek an indictment from a grand jury, and obtain a conviction at trial. The investigation is ongoing, but the grand jury already has identified a “target” for eventual prosecution.

When you receive a “Target” letter it advises you that a federal grand jury has already received evidence upon which criminal charges may be issued in the future. It advises the “Target” that they should seek counsel, and if they cannot afford counsel they should contact the Federal Defender’s Office in their district for legal representation. Once they have secured counsel, their lawyer should contact the prosecutor to discuss the matter.

The purpose behind a “subject” letter is merely to instill fear in the recipient and to “encourage” them to talk about others before others talk about them — as information from others might push them closer to the “target” category. Unwitting lawyers think there is meaning behind the “subject” designation but there is not. Fear is a great motivator. “Doing unto others before they do unto you” is sort of a universal maxim among the idiot criminal class.

So if you are not a “target” — meaning there isn’t sufficient evidence at this time to charge you with a crime — then by default you are a “witness.”

But “witnesses” can, and often do talk themselves into being “targets” during such interviews. That was the purpose of the interview, Mr. Brennan, not because you have some wonderful insights to provide Mr. Durham and his investigators to make their job easier.

One important distinction between “target” and “witness” that is not well understood, but might be in play here, is that it is against DOJ policy to issue a grand jury subpoena to someone who is already a “target”.

A grand jury subpoena is a court order, under threat of contempt, to appear and answer questions under oath without the presence of counsel. If a person is already a “Target”, the subpoena intrudes upon their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and to be represented by counsel while undergoing “custodial” interrogation — they are under subpoena after all. Witnesses before the grand jury are allowed to assert their Fifth Amendment right, but it forces them to assert that right before the grand jurors considering charges against them. The government is not allowed to call a criminal defendant to take the stand in his trial and force him to assert his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in front of the jury. It is deemed prejudicial, and suggest to the jury that the defendant has something to hide. The same principle applies to calling a “Target” in front of a grand jury and forcing them to assert their right to remain silent in front of the grand jurors without counsel present.

So, if John Brennan isn’t at least a potential “target,” why was he not called to explain historical events to the grand jury? //

John Durham and his team did not come to the decision to interview Brennan over the course of eight hours for the purpose of “filling in the blanks” on “events that are under review.”

The purpose of the interview was to get Brennan to confirm or deny information that others have provided up to this point about Brennan, and what he instructed others to do.

John Brennan was placed into a perjury trap yesterday because he’s shown himself willing to perjure himself in the past in order to evade scrutiny.

Yesterday, the ability to avoid the trap was completely within his control — all he had to do was tell the truth. For the most part, Durham’s investigators knew the truth.

John Brennan doesn’t come from a world of objective “truths” and “lies”. For Brennan, the “truth” is always malleable to fit his needs at any given moment.

That’s CIA tradecraft. He sees himself as a master of such “dark arts” based on his decades in DC. Others have long viewed him as a clown.

That’s why, as a prosecutor, you save a liar like John Brennan for last. He can’t help you because you can’t rely on what he tells you.

So your interview is not done for the purpose of helping your case.

And you do it in Virginia and not DC because of what you plan to do next.

In this Age of Idiocy, let us revel in a moment of sanity. Unanimously delivered to us by – are you sitting down? – the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Appeals Court Throws Out Antitrust Ruling In the world of judges and Justices – this is exceedingly embarrassing:  “A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a 2019 ruling .... //

Judge Koh pretended a patent is a ‘monopoly’ – and thus an antitrust violation.

“Ummm…a patent is a grant to ‘exclusive Right to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries…’ – per the Constitution.

“‘Exclusive right’ – means no one but you has that right. You – all by yourself – is a ‘monopoly.’ Per the Constitution.

“Suing Qualcomm’s patents for being a ‘monopoly’ – is like suing Shaquille O’Neal for being tall. You’re suing something – for being exactly what it is supposed to be.

“The Constitution preempts any antitrust law that follows – if antitrust law contradicts the Constitution. Or at least it’s supposed to do so.

Not just a childish prank //

Had Urooj Rahman been a 31-year-old roofer from Wheeling, WV, and firebombed a police car, no one would have said boo about sending him to prison for the rest of his life because the perception among our elites is that a lawyer who is a political terrorist is acting nobly to raise our consciousness and deserves only a mild reprimand that will not damage their passage to a Bill Ayers-esque future. The working class guy? Well, screw him. His life didn’t have much value, and he was probably going to die of a drug overdose anyway. //

This divide, this assumption that some members of society are more worthy of second chances than others and the subtext that the law is really made for the little people, not for members of our ruling class was at the heart of the Tea Party movement. The idea that we and our children are less worthy of mercy or consideration or just catching an even break than someone who has the right degree and right politics it what propelled Trump into the White House. //

Rahman and Mattis are criminals. Their action fits the textbook definition of terrorism. Their act was premeditated. All that letting them off easy will accomplish is to encourage other similarly minded cretins to imitate them and draw upon this precedent as to why there should be few if any, consequences. Pour encouragement les autres, as they say, these two need to be hammered to deter this behavior and to begin to return us to a single standard of justice for all.

DOJ Policy is to indict cases when they are ready -- politics should not be a consideration in indicting or waiting.

What’s the best way to stifle environmental opposition? A massive lawsuit.

DC Circuit Order hints that Judge Sullivan might be removed from the case. //

The Order today suggests that two possible paths to this outcome are under consideration. One would be to simply find that Judge Sullivan’s conduct has created a circumstance where his partiality can reasonably be called into question. That is a basis for mandatory reassignment under Sec. 455 that I referenced above.

The second option would be the more benign approach of finding that in pursuing the Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Judge Sullivan has now made himself a nominal “party.” As such, he can no longer preside over the case.

The first insurance-backed membership organization in America to offer immediate, comprehensive, nationwide, 24-hour support for gun owners who are forced to defend themselves or their family with a firearm.

After using a firearm in justified self-defense, even if you don’t shoot it, you may be facing significant legal troubles (and large financial costs).

If the Democrats had anything on William Barr, they would have forced him to answer questions. They don't, so they just talked over him.Tuesday’s House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing with Attorney General William Barr was really something to behold. Almost every Democrat played from the same playbook, starting with Chairman Jerry Nadler, who told Barr he should be ashamed of himself. One after the other, they heaped scorn on the attorney general in a build up to some question that they refused to allow Barr to answer.There is a serious giveaway in this tactic. When a member of Congress thinks he or she has a witness dead to rights for having made mistakes, or made false statements, the lawmaker tries to compel the witness to answer hard questions, not refuse to allow it. The problem Monday was that Barr clearly had very good answers for every question he was asked. There was no gotcha because he did nothing wrong and could explain that. //

This had nothing to do with finding out what is happening across America and why the Department of Justice is undertaking the actions it is, but purely about political theater.

If you need further evidence of this, note that there was not one successful line of questioning that left Barr with no good answers. Had such a moment occurred, not only would it have been newsworthy, it would have been plastered on every screen in the country. //

The United States is very lucky to have William Barr as the attorney general. There may be no more essential person in the government at the moment. Time and again, he applies the law and only the law to his sound decisions. For this, he is rewarded with media scorn and threats of impeachment.

But Barr isn’t on the ropes. He remains in the center of the ring, impervious, throwing his punches.

It is important, therefore, that we work together in combating organized crime in all its forms. We must use our courts and our law enforcement agencies, and the moral forces of our people, to put down organized crime wherever it appears.

At the same time, we must aid and encourage gentler forces to do their work of prevention and cure. These forces include education, religion, and home training, family and child guidance, and wholesome recreation.

The most important business in this Nation--or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don't think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child's mind the moral code under which we live.

The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days.

If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

Above all, we must recognize that human misery breeds most of our crime. We must wipe out our slums, improve the health of our citizens, and eliminate the inequalities of opportunity which embitter men and women and turn them toward lawlessness. In the long run, these programs represent the greatest of all anticrime measures.

And I want to emphasize, particularly, equality of opportunity. I think every child in the Nation, regardless of his race, creed, or color, should have the right to a proper education. And when he has finished that education, he ought to have the right in industry to fair treatment in employment. If he is able and willing to do the job, he ought to be given a chance to do that job, no matter what his religious connections are, or what his color is.

I am particularly anxious that we should do everything within our power to protect the minds and hearts of our children from the moral corruption that accompanies organized crime. Our children are our greatest resource, and our greatest asset--the hope of our future, and the future of the world. We must not permit the existence of conditions which cause our children to believe that crime is inevitable and normal. We must teach idealism--honor, ethics, decency, the moral law. We must teach that we should do right because it is right, and not in the hope of any material reward. That is what our moral code is based on: do to the other fellow as you would have him do to you. If we would continue that all through our lives, we wouldn't have organized crime--if everybody would do that.

Our local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies have a major role to play in this whole task of crime suppression.

As law enforcement officers you have great powers. At the same time you must never forget that hand in hand with those powers go great responsibilities. You must make certain that these powers are not used for personal gain, or from any personal motive. Too often organized crime is made possible by corruption of law enforcement officials.

But, far more than that, we must always remember that you are officers of the law in a great democratic nation which owes its birth to the indignation of its citizens against the encroachment of police and governmental powers against their individual freedoms.

Now there isn't any difference, so far as I can see, in the manner in which totalitarian states treat individuals than there is in the racketeers' handling of these lawless rackets with which we are sometimes faced. And the reason that our Government is strong, and the greatest democracy in the world, is because we have a Bill of Rights.

the time for DOJ and Gen. Flynn to file Replies to the amicus brief arrived today. Those are the briefs I am reviewing today, with the DOJ brief up first. //

A lot will be made of Footnote 1 in the brief which addresses the production of a significant volume of material from the Flynn prosecutors following the transfer of the case to Judge Sullivan, and the entry by Judge Sullivan of his standing order on production by the government of Brady material to Gen. Flynn’s attorneys even though Gen. Flynn had pleaded guilty.

The Reply brief notes that the prosecutors produced approximately 25,000 pages of discovery in connection with Judge Sullivan’s order – documents that had not been provided to Gen. Flynn’s lawyers prior to his entering his guilty plea. In further notes that 21,000 pages of that material involved the FARA filing, and the remaining material dealt with Gen. Flynn’s January 24, 2017, interview, and the various interviews done with him as part of his cooperation with the SCO’s investigation.

Then it gets interesting when it refers to the 25 pages of material disclosed to Gen. Flynn’s attorneys in May 2020 as the result of the independent review conducted by U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen. It states that these documents are relevant to the “discretionary decision to dismiss this case.” //

The final point I’ll make on the DOJ brief is that it lays waste to the claim by Flynn opponents that because Gen. Flynn has pleaded guilty, there is some heightened judicial interest in terms of the separation of powers concerns, and the Executive interest in controlling the charging decision is diminished. As Dep. Sol. General Wall stated in his argument before the Circuit Court, and as is repeated here, there is no basis in the case law for such a distinction. The constitutional concerns regarding separation of powers, under the case law, are the same in either circumstance.

Most significantly – from a nerdish lawyer point of view – is the point that dismissing an action is not a “judicial” act in the same way that entry of judgment or sentencing is a judicial act. Allowing the parties to jointly resolve and dismiss the dispute does not in any way give the resolution the imprimatur of judicial agreement with the outcome. It is nothing more than an acknowledgment by the Court that there is no further case or controversy for the Court to resolve.

Terry Stops and Three Strikes have an important place in policing and public safety. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Today, the Ninth Circuit applied the coup de grace. They tossed out the verdict altogether AND remanded the matter with instructions that the case be dismissed.

What had Avenatti done wrong??? In a STUNNING BIT OF POTENTIAL MALPRACTICE, Avenatti had taken a class-action case to trial with a Class Representative Plaintiff who had not been damaged — Bahamas Surgical Center had never purchased any the KCC manufactured gowns at issue.

Bahamas has no claim against Halyard [distributor of KCC gowns] because it purchased no gowns from it, and any injuries it has are not traceable to Halyard’s conduct. Without a claim of its own, Bahamas cannot “‘seek relief on behalf of [itself] or any other member of the class.’” //

there was no reason for Avenatti to not have moved to amend the complaint to add new Class Representatives when this issue came up.

The claims against KCC may have been sound and based in substantial facts. But this procedural error by Avenatti has all the class members now in a position of having to start over again.

While there is no set time limit for a vote, we should know the answer within about 10 days. And if we haven’t heard by then, here's what it likely means. //

Judge Emmett Sullivan has no business seeking a rehearing by the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals of the panel decision granting Michael Flynn’s petition for mandamus. Both Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, and the U.S. government hammered that point yesterday in their answers to Sullivan’s petition for rehearing en banc.

Powell had sought mandamus from the D.C. Circuit after Sullivan refused to dismiss the criminal charge against her client. After uncovering exculpatory evidence Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team had withheld from Flynn’s defense attorneys, federal prosecutors moved to dismiss the single charge of lying to the FBI that the special counsel’s office had levied against Flynn in late 2017. //

That evidence included notes establishing the FBI had no legitimate investigative purpose to question Flynn about his telephone conversations with the Russian ambassador and suggested instead that the ambush interview provide a perjury trap to out Flynn from the Trump administration. Even then, as revealed by additional notes disclosed last week, the agents who questioned Flynn did not believe he had lied during the interview.