Who would you rather have as FBI Director, Chris Wray or Sidney Powell
The attached Newsmax show, firstly, highlights the displeasure of President Trump with Christopher Wray. Wray has perform poorly in cleaning up the FBI and has provided almost no help in bringing forward exculpatory information to aid in the defense of those persecuted during the Russia Hoax. Judicial Watch has sued and obtained some information pertaining to the misconduct oft the FBI, but has been fought on every issue. Even after Judicial Watch winning in court on FOIA lawsuits to reveal some of the most egregious issues, the FBI and the DOJ have only begrudgingly and slowly produced the documents. One would have to think that they are running out the clock, hoping for a change of president.
In his testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee, Ray made assertions that were, in my opinion, problamatic: firstly, that Russia was the biggest threat to interfere in the Election; secondly, downplaying the organization and the damage being done by Antifa. Once again, he suggested that right wing groups were the biggest threat to homeland security. He is in a position to know much more that I, but his assertions about Antifa being an ideological following, rather than a group, seems to me to downplay the actual destruction we are seeing and the obvious organization and funding of this GROUP.
Sidney Powell's comments are worth hearing and she would certainly bring some fresh air and disinfectant to the FBI were she to become the FBI Director.
- Details
- Written by Super User
- Category: Justice
- Hits: 338
Actor Jim Caviezel Warns About Christian Complacency
- Details
- Written by Super User
- Category: Education Video
- Hits: 361
Constitution Day 2020
Today, President Trump launched the 1776 Project. He has taken a stand to preserve our history and culture. You might want to find a way to stand with him in your local community.
- Details
- Written by Super User
- Category: Education Video
- Hits: 352
Bill Barr's Commence at Hillsdale
I have attached the prepared remarks for Bill Barr's speech at Hillsdale. Recently, the Attorney General has taken on the task of correcting some of the most blatent speaking points of the left and standing up for the rule of the law. Its fairly lengthy but well worth reading.
One of the most disturbing issues in America today is "lawfare", the misuse of the legal process for political purposes. Leftist lawyers often speak of creating new, innovatives ways to use the law to achieve their goals. This puts everyone at risk and makes a mockery of the idea that laws should be understood by the citizen who is subject to them.
Examples that are were high profile. The unethical tactics used in the prosecution and "temporary" conviction of Senator Ted Stevens, a conviction that resulted in Stevens losing his election bid, adding the vote in the Senate necessary to pass Obama Care. The persecution of Scooter Libby in an effort to get Dick Cheney was another example of a special prosecutor out to change the political arena, and, even more grossly, the effort to unseat President Trump by Mueller and gang, led by Andrew Weissman by hoping to create a perjury trap in a case with no underlying crime.
I suspect these violations of citizens rights would not have occurred under Attorney General Bill Barr nor Attorney General Robert Jackson.
Justice News
Remarks as prepared for delivery
I am pleased to be at this Hillsdale College celebration of Constitution Day. Sadly, many colleges these days don’t even teach the Constitution, much less celebrate it. But at Hillsdale, you recognize that the principles of the Founding are as relevant today as ever—and vital to the success of our free society. I appreciate your observance of this important day and all you do for civic education in the United States.
When many people think about the virtues of our Constitution, they first mention the Bill of Rights. That makes sense. The great guarantees of the Bill of Rights—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms, just to name the first few—are critical safeguards of liberty. But as President Reagan used to remind people, the Soviet Union had a constitution too, and it even included some lofty-sounding rights. Ultimately, however, those promises were just empty words, because there was no rule of law to enforce them.
The rule of law is the lynchpin of American freedom. And the critical guarantee of the rule of law comes from the Constitution’s structure of separated powers. The Framers recognized that by dividing the legislative, executive, and judicial powers— each significant, but each limited—they would minimize the risk of any form of tyranny. That is the real genius of the Constitution, and it is ultimately more important to securing liberty than the Bill of Rights. After all, the Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the original Constitution, which the Framers did not think needed an express enumeration of rights.
I want to focus today on the power that the Constitution allocates to the Executive, particularly in the area of criminal justice. The Supreme Court has correctly held that, under Article II of the Constitution, the Executive has virtually unchecked discretion to decide whether to prosecute individuals for suspected federal crimes. The only significant limitation on that discretion comes from other provisions of the Constitution. Thus, for example, a United States Attorney could not decide to prosecute only people of a particular race or religion. But aside from that limitation — which thankfully has remained a true hypothetical at the Department of Justice — the Executive has broad discretion to decide whether to bring criminal prosecutions in particular cases.
The key question, then, is how the Executive should exercise its prosecutorial discretion. Eighty years ago this spring, one of my predecessors in this job —then-Attorney General Robert Jackson — gave a famous speech to a conference of United States Attorneys in which he described the proper role and qualities of federal prosecutors. (By the way, Jackson was one of several former Attorneys General who went on become a Supreme Court Justice. But I am one of only two former Attorneys General who went on to become Attorney General again.)
- Details
- Written by Super User
- Category: Justice
- Hits: 361
Page 14 of 20
