Biden’s ‘1 final warning’ … before the Democratic coup? writes Mike Pottage
If Americans take Democrats at their word, anything less than a total Democratic victory on Nov. 8 will threaten freedom and the future of the United States of America. Democrats are prepared to act immediately to prevent that from happening.
Specifics of the American rescue plan remain top secret, but …
Acting President Ron Klain, White House chief of staff, says Joe Biden’s speech Wednesday was “one final warning.” Must we vote Democrat, or face imprisonment? Is voting against a Democrat a capital offense? If national survival is at stake, as Ron Klain claims it is, and Joe Biden has said so repeatedly, what are those Democrats prepared to do if election results reject their candidates?
Mr. Klain, what’s your option? What’s your plan?
Why do this? Why warn one last time, and not too subtly suggest the Democrats intend to make sure voters vote the right way? Klain may be a gas bag, but he echoes the party leaders.
This should not surprise anyone. Al Gore was elected president, but denied the task by election deniers. Hillary Clinton was denied her rightful election by deplorables and election deniers. And if you travel down the Democratic list of candidate you will find Stacey Abrams, the elected governor-in-exile of Georgia, who was denied the throne by those same nasty election deniers. Will Ron Klain call out the National Guard to enforce his version of the vote? That was done recently to enforce the Democrats’ view of Jan. 6.
The crazy talk from the Democratic Party becomes more and more delusional as the midterm election looms.
Hillary Clinton, in her supporting role in this election, went so far as to suggest election deniers, identified as such by Democratic saviors, should not be allowed to vote. “Are you now, or have you ever been, a Republican?” That’s a scheme of schemes. Deny GOP voters and register illegal aliens! Now the chief of staff references Biden’s “one final warning.” If you cannot beat them at the ballot box, threaten them.
What is the Democratic Party supposed to do if it believes a fascist mob of election deniers has seized control through “disinformation” and “misinformation”?
Biden said so on Nov. 2, and in support, his chief of staff has told all Americans the Nov. 8 election must support the Democratic slate. This is, as he said, “one final warning.” Read More
What’s next for Merrick Garland? Indicting Trump, of course! Joseph Farah writes for The Liberty Loft
What’s the first thing Merrick Garland plans to do after the midterms? Indict President Donald Trump!
It’s expected 60 to 90 days after the election – once Trump throws his hat into the race for president.
Call Garland the most politically motivated attorney general in American history. Thank God he didn’t get to be a Supreme Court justice! But such an attack on President Trump is actually being talked about openly on the Hill. Think about it. After all Trump has been through, he is likely to be indicted.
We’re in for more weird times.
According to the Hill, it will be a witch hunt – more of the same from the shameless Garland.
What’s the timetable for this other shoe to drop?
“A couple of weeks after the election, I assume that Garland will indict Trump,” said one veteran Republican aide, expressing a sentiment shared by several other GOP aides and strategists.
A second Republican aide warned an indictment “could actually end up helping the [former] president politically.”
Republican aides and strategists point out the party base quickly rallied behind Trump after the FBI raided his Mar-a-Lago estate in early August. But GOP aides on Capitol Hill believe any anxiety Trump might have felt about losing relevance with the GOP base was ameliorated after it rallied around him in August in response to the FBI’s action.
Here are the options for indicting Trump:
One is related to the documents taken from the White House and found at Mar-a-Lago, while the other concerns the Jan. 6, 2021, incident at the Capitol.
While many Democrats would like to see the Department of Justice charge Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 attack, Jeffrey Robbins, a former federal prosecutor, said federal prosecutors’ strongest case would be to indict Trump for violating the Espionage Act in connection to the Mar-a-Lago documents.
“I think that the Espionage Act violations are relatively straightforward, even self-evident, and that the Department likely already has substantial evidence of obstruction of justice,” says Robbins.
GOP aides and strategists warn there’s a risk of political violence in response to any indictment against Trump. The former president warned last month that if the Department of Justice indicts him, “you’d have problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen before.”
“I don’t think the people of the United States would stand for it,” he warned.
President Trump hasn’t made a formal announcement of his decision, but has given every indication that he will launch another bid for the White House next year.
Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that an indictment wouldn’t stop him from running for president.
“If a thing like that happened, I would have no prohibition against running,” he said.
Vin Weber, a Republican strategist, said it would be a “bad idea” to indict Trump because it would sow more political discord into a deeply divided nation, and waiting well into the 2024 election cycle would only make it worse.
“I think an indictment is a bad idea, but I think that Garland is under such political pressure by the Democratic left that it may well happen,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a good idea, and I don’t want to be misinterpreted as supporting [it.] If it’s going to happen, though, it should happen as soon after the [midterm] election as possible because it complicates everybody’s plans: [President Joe] Biden’s plans, Trump’s plans, every other Republican’s plans. If this is going to happen, it’s not in anyone’s interest to prolong this process until the presidential process for ’24 is underway and drop this like a bomb into the middle of an already established presidential field.”
Robbin added: “I think that the department will strive to bring an indictment as soon as it can consistent with other constraints, in order to at least minimize the ‘legs’ on the inevitable barrage of charges it will face that by indicting the former president it is interfering with an upcoming presidential election.”
He said the Justice Department “will face a storm of such criticism whenever it acts, but doing so as soon as possible at least provides some defense, however limited, against that inevitable criticism.”
The Hill reports that Robbins said Garland has good reason to postpone the announcement of an indictment until after the 2022 midterm election because otherwise, it would immediately become the top political issue in Senate and House races around the country.
“Had he indicted right before the midterms it truly would have rocked the indictment with criticisms that there had been a violation of the de facto policy within the DOJ” not to launch prosecutions of political figures within two or three months of an election and “really would have undercut the credibility of the indictment and in addition could very well have affected the midterms,” he added.
But other prominent legal experts don’t think Garland needs to announce an indictment within the next 60 to 90 days since the first contest of the Republican presidential primary won’t take place until January 2024.
“I doubt the timing of the midterm elections has much to do with the timing of any indictment of Donald Trump,” said Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former federal prosecutor. “The next time he will appear on the ballot, if ever, will be in the 2024 primary elections, which begin in January of 2024. The DOJ policy would not come into play until 60 days or so before that date.”
She said Garland “has all of 2023 to play with.”
Faced with mounting political pressure on both sides, Garland has stayed tight-lipped about prosecuting Trump. He did reveal in August, however, that he “personally” approved the raid on Mar-a-Lago.
“Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly without fear or favor,” he said in August.
Of course, Garland believes that. What would you expect of him? Read More