Attack on Justice – USA Gov Policy

America’s justice system is under full-fledged attack from multiple quarters.

The practice of engaging in riots, demonstrations, media pressure and the like in an attempt to influence the outcome of actions before a court has become commonplace. It is, in its essence, a return to the medieval practice by trial by ordeal. Either one has a judicial system, with explicit laws, rules and practices to determine the outcome, or one has anarchy.

Over the past several years, controversial issues before various courts have been the focus of public disorder, often before all the facts are known. News media have essentially sparked much of this by inadequate and rash reporting.

The most infamous example involved the “Hands up, Don’t Shoot” incident that took place in Ferguson, Mo. in 2014, in which white police Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed 18-year-old African-American Michael Brown. An exhaustive investigation by the Obama Justice Department revealed that Brown did not surrender, and that the shooting was justified. The investigation revealed “Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him. … It was not unreasonable for Wilson to fire on Brown until he stopped moving forward.”

Despite that, “Hands up, don’t shoot” has become a rallying cry for those who would substitute a mob mentality for the practice of justice through deliberate and fair court proceedings.

The media’s role cannot be ignored. When news outlets insult the intelligent of their audience when they claim that burning buildings, looting stores, invading police precincts, attacking courthouses, declaring “autonomous zones” and beating up passersby are acts of “peaceful protest,” they give cover to the criminals that perpetuate these vicious deeds, and encourage more of the same.

That is only one theater of attack.

It generates heat that serves to offer relief from stiffness, mobility and http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/07-12-17-DDA-MINUTES.pdf cialis 20 mg various other problems of the body. If he can’t master a full erection, firm enough for a successful sexual encounter; he simply feels like a person whose whole being, pride, and sense of humor to enjoy the experience. viagra no prescription http://downtownsault.org/category/shopping-downtown/ First, it is a good source of potassium, which is great for heart health and blood circulation, purchase generic cialis both of which are essential to weight loss. Among the oral medications, the most popular medicines used for ordine cialis on line downtownsault.org the treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Political action committees (pacs) funded by Soros spent millions in what normally would be considered lackluster district attorney races. A Soros pac gave almost $1 million to an obscure Texas DA primary candidate, the leftist Joe Gonzalez. As a result, he won his race. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick criticized Soros’ involvement in the race, noting “He’s trying to change the fabric of this country.”

Individuals are free to contribute to whom they wish, but when there is a coordinated effort to construct an environment in which laws are not enforced by District Attorneys due to the political whims of their mega-contributors, attention must be paid.

The refusal to enforce laws, and the implementation of irrational concepts such as low or no bail policies have had a devastating impact.

Providing a career criminal with a history of violent offenses with an easy way to return to the community after committing his latest assault on innocent people isn’t a political statement. It is an offense on common decency and public safety.

The results are obvious. Crime rates have soared. Stores are closing throughout the nation. Affected Neighborhoods are becoming retail wastelands. This didn’t happen by chance. It is the clear and direct result of a progressive takeover of the criminal justice system by extremist activists in local legislatures, aided and abetted by district attorneys whose campaigns were specifically funded by hyper-wealthy progressive billionaires who seek to fundamentally alter the American system of laws.

Defiance of the law doesn’t just exist on the local level. When an American President, whose specific duty it is to enforce the law refuses to perform his Constitutional duty, that sets the tone for lawbreakers throughout the nation. The U.S. has laws about how the nations borders may be crossed. Mr. Biden has wantonly refused to abide by those measures. Like activist D.A.s and rioters, he displays contempt for the law.

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]