1--#KamalaBusRape Case

Here are the documents I have from this case.

As a reminder for those who have not been following this, there is a man who comes to the country as an illegal alien. He is convicted of a domestic violence crime. He gets out of jail and settles in San Francisco, a sanctuary city. Somehow, he gets a job as a bus driver carting around drunk and rowdy people at night from one night club to another. He and his cousin conspire to let the illegal alien bus driver rape a married woman in her twenties. The rape is brutal. He's arrested and Kamala, when District Attorney, agrees to let him off for a ridiculously lenient 3-year prison term.

Given the 4-image limit, it will take a thread to attach all of the pages.

I want you to focus on the police officer's report of what occurred. And on the victim's impact statement given in open court.

And then ask yourself if such a prosecutor has disqualified herself from the presidency. My answer is a resounding "yes," she is disqualified.

Lastly, note that this case was not personally prosecuted by Kamala but by an assistant DA that she would have needed to sign off on -- one Adrian Ivancevich.


2--#KamalaBusRapeCase

Tranche 2.

As I digest this document, I will post reactions.

But let me start with the first thing that jumps out at me: The document is signed as pictured below. There is no mention that Jack Smith and his subordinates are at the U.S. Department of Justice.

As if you needed any better indication that they regard themselves as an extra-constitutional Fourth Branch of government. They are no longer listing their institutional affiliation.

(Though they list their address as that building that many DOJ alums call "Main Justice" at 9th and Pennsylvania Aves., or more formally the Robert F. Kennedy Justice Building. Presumably, the name of the building is not used (and I can tell you that is standard on DOJ court filings coming out of Main Justice) because in either variant of the building's name DOJ would have to use the word "Justice.")

Now stop to think why Jack Smith might have done this: It raises the question of whether use of any Justice Department organ to go after a former President of the United States is constitutional and could comport with the Supreme Court's July 1, 2024 immunity decision in Trump v. United States. +1 The redactions are ridiculous. None of them are designed to shield either privileged information or inadmissible evidence from public view, but instead just to ostensibly conceal identities.

But the identities pop out at you, if you’ve been following the constant news story drum beat against Trump in the MSM and you’ve read the J6 Report.

So what that means is essentially that virtually nothing is redacted. The process is a joke. The redactions are an easily penetrated smokescreen that has nothing to do with protecting witnesses.

In this connection, let me make a prediction: Norm Eisen, Brookings, Just Security, , the Brennan Center, and/or the NYT and Washington Post will issue a redactions guide before too long.

It will be in the form of a Key — P1 is such and such person, P2 is __, P3 is either __ or __, etc.

You watch. If I’m wrong, I’ll re-ripen this point and admit it. But I don’t think I will be.Lawfare.com

1/4 This is Barr covering his posterior, since the informant info goes back to 2017, as John Solomon reported. He wants to lay the inaction on the Biden Administration whereas in reality, the inaction straddles both the Barr DOJ and this DOJ, with Wray as a constant across both.

https://twitter.com/AUnredacted/status/1666451464208764932

2/4 Now, the way Barr would answer your question is that he had assigned looking at Hunter Biden corruption allegations to the Delaware US Attorney, so sending Joe Biden corruption allegations to the same US Attorney seemed like a natural fit.

1/x This will be a long 🧵on the topic of whether H.R. 3746's permitting reform is worth something or is basically worthless. H.R. 3746 raises the debt limit.
From here on out, I call it "the Bill."

This will no doubt be my longest thread so strap in. I'll begin with main pts. 2/x The "reforms" in H.R. 3746 (“the Bill”) will do little to solve the serious problems created by the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and its regulations.

NEPA is a law that requires all infrastructure projects to be analyzed for their environmental effects.

1/x OK, I've listened so as not to be only abstract. (This will be a long thread as I'm going to take the most salient things on point by point.)

First, there will be snark or acrimony here. I'd like to think of both @JennaEllisEsq and @josh_hammer as friends in conservatism.

https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1663571741162057728

2/x Second, I think reasonable conservatives can differ in the race between Trump and DeSantis.

Third, I think DeSantis does have his merits.

Fourth, I'm not going to descend into the intercamp mud wars.

Fifth, the Jenna-Josh podcast exchange was better than I'd expected.

1/4 Rep Raskin tells us several things about “woke” here, all of which I think is balderdash:

see around 19:50-21:00 mark.

Specifically, he says:

1) conservatives don’t know what the term means;
2) the Left doesn’t really know what it means either; 2/4 cont’d:
3) we on the Left have stopped using the term anyway, so conservatives are too late; &
4) I, Rep Raskin, have a def’n for “woke” which is “stay vigilant” because we Dems are under attack.

1/ VERY IMPORTANT THREAD 🧵on how House Dems objected to other House Dems destroying due process for President Trump 👇

Sometimes the MSM does its job and exposes true hypocrisy and releases stories that are not entirely biased in a leftward direction.

foxnews.com/politics/nadle… 2/ In essence, Speaker Pelosi & Rep. Schiff designed the first Trump impeachment to deny Trump due process. Remarkably, Nadler called them on it, as a new book from Politico reporter + WaPo reporter coming out 10/18 shows.

Nadler said Pelosi & Schiff acted "unconstitutional[ly]"

1/4 In Somersett’s case (1772), Lord Mansfield, the great English jurist, set in motion the demise of slavery in the English-speaking world, saying “[slavery] is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law.” And there was no such legislation in England

https://twitter.com/michele_tafoya/status/1575125337423372290

2/4 Antislavery had achieved at least minority support among the American colonies’ thought leaders long before the Declaration of Independence and the Boston Party in 1773.

1 FACT: For many of the past few months, the biggest MSM political news stories on many days have been related to the J6 Cmte

Thus this video SHOULD BE the biggest news story because it blows the Cmte up. Cmte clearly an op designed only to damage Trump.

rumble.com/v1kh8ix-tiktok… 2 Preston Moore is a TikTok influencer. He’s a plaintiffs-side lawyer at Beasley Allen in Atlanta. He’s NOT a Trump supporter.

He reveals in video that he was offered money to spread J6 propaganda against Trump.

This will be a long thread because what he was asked is so damning

1/5 I believe that the Constitution answers these questions. Structurally, legal enactments must be read as a whole. Article II makes the President the Chief law enforcement officer of the United States, not the AG.

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1567942440954335233

2/5 But AG must take an oath--Article VI, cl. 3. The AG must therefore, himself personally, support the Constitution, which means he mustn't do anything unconstitutional or that violates valid, properly passed laws of Congress (which get enacted under Article I)- not invalid ones

1/5 At the 40,000-ft level, it's funny how the J6 Cmte, which clearly has acted and will continue to act as an improper, junior varsity prosecutor, violating the sacred constitutional separation of powers, has been cleared in some ct. decisions as engaged in a legislative inquiry 2/5 But when @LindseyGrahamSC argues his contacts with a Georgia official re the 2020 were legislative in nature and thus protected by the Speech and Debate Clause, he loses because, well, he might have been engaging in SOME non-legislative activity too.

tinyurl.com/4yf5aj8s

1 Nice try Sarah. You have quite the instinct for the capillaries.

And you’ve consistently gotten things wrong and acted unethically, including by putting out at least one story from lawyer leakers violating the DC Bar confidentiality rules while questioning my ethics.

https://twitter.com/sarahnlynch/status/1557100846839644166

2 But to you it is OK to aid and abet others clearly violating the rules as long as it’s in the service of attacking me, who only stands ACCUSED by them of violating the rules.

And you can’t even see the irony, blinded by the Democrat narrative of who is hero and who is villain.