There's a lot that's starting to smell really rotten here:
U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, appointed by Donald Trump, pressed about the terms of the deal that was struck with U.S. Attorney David Weiss of Delaware, another Trump appointee who was kept on by President Joe Biden to oversee the case.
In a brief order Tuesday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika wrote that an employee at Latham & Watkins, a law firm representing the president’s son, had called the court clerk’s office and falsely claimed to work for a Republican lawyer in the hopes of persuading the clerk to remove documents that apparently contained Biden’s personal tax information.
Latham denied any misconduct, saying the firm’s employee identified herself as a Latham staffer and called from a law firm phone that typically displays “LATHAM” on the caller ID. The firm said there must have been an “unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication” between the employee and court staff.
Honestly I believe one of two things happened, either a court clerk screwed up and is unwilling to take the blame for it, or someone in Judge Noreika's office made this up to try to screw Hunter out of a plea deal.
Knowing the level of corruption in the Republican party, you can guess which theory I'm favoring.
No, this is false. There was no classified information that was sent over that system. There were seven email threads in which aides discussed the existence of classified information, which they determined "should have been marked classified" as a result- but that's not the same as sending classified information over the system. Nothing marked classified was sent on the system, and that's a fact.
That makes absolutely zero sense. The scripts issue individual delete requests for each comment. If a comment is deleted, it should stay deleted, even if the script ultimately fails.
AND let’s just have one second to acknowledge that while Hillary didn’t do very much wrong regarding the emails, she wasn’t completely without fault. She was certainly NEGLIGENT in keeping sensitive government communications secured.
Thanks for proving my point. None of the information on Hillary's email server was classified.
Because the law was VERY clear that conviction for NEGLIGENCE ALONE was enough to bar her from HOLDING OFFICE.
You can't be grossly negligent in handling something that was retroactively classified after you handled it. This is an absurd proposition.
This is exactly the kind of stuff people were saying in 2015. Hillary did nothing wrong. Even Bernie admitted it, but it didn't make a difference to folks like you, you took the bait, and it encouraged a lot of people to stay home or vote for the fascist.
2016 got me reading a lot about the Availability Heuristic and Availability Cascades. It looks like a novelty until you're watching the truth be rewritten in front of you by people who keep talking about Her Emails, who can't tell you what's wrong with them but who believe it's chock full of corruption because lots of other people keep talking about corruption when they talk about them.
It's astounding how many of the Bernie Sanders supporters at the time would bet their dominant arm that there was real evidence of corruption in her emails without ever being able to identify a single instance of it. Not to knock them but just to say I think a lot of them didn't realize that the manufactured availability cascade was straight up mind control and despite how paranoid a lot of them were at the time very few of them figured out that they were being puppeted.
Investigate the FBI. First the bullshit Clinton drop in October 2015 and now this. The bureau is clearly not politically neutral and needs to be purged.
That's why they like to promote the message that the Democrats are inherently ineffective as a party. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy if they're never given real power.
Unlikely to have legal teeth. For one, it's actually facially unconstitutional. First, the vesting clause of Article III states that the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court. It also expresses that Congress may establish other courts. There's a statutory interpretation canon, expressio unius est exclusio alterius that essentially says that if you are speaking of a set of things ("courts") and say that something applies (congressional discretion) to a specific subset ("lower courts"), it implies that the remainder of that subset ("the supreme court") is exempt (cannot be regulated by congress).
Second, there's arguably already a constitutional process for regulating the ethics of SCOTUS ("good behavior"); however, the Constitution is silent on how it's enforced and in that vacuum SCOTUS's position is likely to be that they self-regulate.
I think, however, the public spectacle of it does have value. For one, SCOTUS (and the Republicans) are very concerned with the court losing legitimacy and a genuine consensus emerging that the court ought to be overhauled- whether that's Whitehouse's bill or a packing plan. It would be great propaganda for a future election for Democrats to say "hey, stop taking bribes" to justices currently taking bribes and for the court not to agree and say "you're right, no taking bribes" but instead to say "fuck you, you can't tell us what to do but also we're not taking bribes we promise".
Whitehouse's strategy here, especially since this would never pass the House, is to offer this as ammunition to Democrats running in 2024 showcasing the corruption of the Republican party.
There's a lot that's starting to smell really rotten here:
Separately, from https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/25/hunter-biden-judge-plea-deal-phone-call-00108184
Honestly I believe one of two things happened, either a court clerk screwed up and is unwilling to take the blame for it, or someone in Judge Noreika's office made this up to try to screw Hunter out of a plea deal.
Knowing the level of corruption in the Republican party, you can guess which theory I'm favoring.