Repub. Gov. Assoc. "Rule of Law Defense Fund" sent robocalls urging March on Capitol

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday January 08, 2021 · 11:02 AM PST

2021/01/08 · 11:02

In a bit of seditious irony, a dark money arm of the Republican Attorneys General Association, called “The Rule of Law Defense Fund” sent out robocalls urging people to march on the Capitol, leading to the insurrection and deaths of police and protestors.

The Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF), a 501(c)(4) arm of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), helped organize the protest preceding the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol that took place on January 6, 2021.

The link to the Documented.net article above has an audio of the robocall, which says:

“I’m calling for the Rule of Law Defense Fund with an important message,” the robocall stated. “The march to save America is tomorrow in Washington D.C. at the Ellipse in President’s Park between E St. and Constitution Avenue on the south side of the White House, with doors opening at 7:00 a.m. At 1:00 p.m., we will march to the Capitol building and call on congress to stop the steal. We are hoping patriots like you will join us to continue to fight to protect the integrity of our elections. For more information, visit MarchtoSaveAmerica.com. This call is paid for and authorized by the Rule of Law Defense Fund, 202-796-5838.”

RAGA is headed by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall who has stated the calls went out without his knowledge and he will investigate. Of course, Marshall did sign onto the Texas AG’s failed lawsuit contesting Biden’s win in 4 states.

Marshall’s statement said, in part:

I was neither consulted about nor informed of those decisions. I have directed an internal review of this matter. As I said yesterday, I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the actions of those who attempted to storm the U.S. Capitol, a place where passionate but peaceful protestors had gathered and lawmakers debated inside. Our country is built upon the foundation of the rule of law. American democracy guarantees the right of peaceful protest. Those who chose to engage in violence and anarchy should and will be held accountable under the law.”

Is Judge Sullivan required to grant Trump Motion to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn? No.

zdefender

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday May 07, 2020 · 1:39 PM PDT

2020/05/07 · 13:39

Is Judge Sullivan required to grant the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn? Not necessarily.

Today the new Trump appointed US Attorney Timothy Shea moved to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn.

In an extraordinary departure from the Justice Department’s typical handling of criminal cases, the Donald Trump-appointed leadership of the Justice Department on Thursday dropped charges against Michael Flynn, the former White House national security adviser who previously pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.

In a court filing, Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea said that even if Flynn lied about his contact with the Russian ambassador to the United States ahead of Trump’s 2017 inauguration, that Flynn’s lies were irrelevant to the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into his communications with Russia.

The government is moving to dismiss the charges per Rule 48(a).

Rule 48(a), allows the prosecutor to dismiss "with leave of the court." Normally, where the defendant consents, this is a no-brainer. Of course, the Judge will grant the government’s motion, just like the Judge grants most motions brought by the government.

But, does the Judge have any power to deny a government motion to dismiss? Yes. Most jurisdictions, including federal courts, recognize that under the doctrine of Separation of Powers , charging is an Executive Function and the decision to dismiss is a Judicial Function. In California, while Chief Supreme Court Justice Ronald George was on the Los Angeles Trial Court, he famously refused to grant the District Attorney’s motion to dismiss murder charges against the Hillside Strangler and appointed the Attorney General to continue with prosecution, leading to convictions.

Under federal law, prior case-law has limited the ability of Judges to exercise this power to disagree with the prosecutor. The Judge is not required rubber stamp a Rule 48 motion to dismiss. But Judges can only deny the motion in extraordinary circumstances where the judge finds that the prosecutor abused his or her discretion, and where the judge finds that prosecutor has failed to consider factors in the public interest. The Judge may not withhold approval merely because his or her conception of public interest differs from that of prosecuting attorney.

In the government’s motion, they say that Flynn’s false statements were not “material” to the FBI’s Russia investigation. “Materiality” is an element of the crime of false statements. Were Flynn’s false statements about meetings with Kislyak and other Russians and Flynn’s false statements about lobbying for Turkey “material” to the Russian investigation? Almost certainly, but cases say Judges aren’t supposed to base a denial of a motion to dismiss on differing views of the evidence.

It would be an extraordinary move for the Judge to deny the motion. But consider Judge Sullivan’s past comments about Flynn in this case. “Arguably, you sold your country out.”

Sullivan could conceivably find extraordinary circumstances, bad faith, or disservice to the public interest and deny it. Alternatively, Sullivan could request briefing, maybe appoint an amicus, and possibly delay a decision until next year.

It’s not over.

Will Warren announce MFA will be paid for by "Medicare Premiums?"

zdefender

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday October 21, 2019 · 2:50 PM PDT

2019/10/21 · 14:50

Senator Warren says she will make an announcement about her Medicare for All plan that will include how she will pay for it.

"We need to talk about the cost, and I plan, over the next few weeks, to put out a plan that talks about specifically the cost of 'Medicare for All' and specifically how we pay for it," Warren said at a town hall in Indianola, Iowa, on Sunday.

I have no idea what she will state. I don’t know what words she will use.

Will Warren’s plan include words to the effect that her plan will raises "taxes" on the wealthy and middle class? Or will she choose a more nuanced word?

Ronald Reagan scrupulously avoided the "T" word, and spoke of "revenue enhancements" among other things. Is there anything wrong with Sen. Warren calling the payments for the Medicare for All plan "Medicare premiums"?

But Warren could hypothetically announce:

"My plan will be paid for by Medicare Premiums, that will be paid for on a sliding scale. The wealthiest who can afford the most, will pay the most. The poorest Americans will pay nothing. And the vast Middle Class will pay less in Medicare Premiums and deductibles under my plan, than they pay now."

Trump, pundits and right wing talking points may well call it a tax, but they will call it tax no matter what anyone says, just like the right wing said that Kerry lied about his Purple Heart, or that Hillary intentionally violated intelligence protocols, or that Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

Poll

100 votes Show Results

Is it shrewder to call the payments

100 votes Vote Now!

Is it shrewder to call the payments

Medicare Premiums

88 votes

Medicare Taxes

12 votes

Brock Turner Brief

zdefender

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday December 04, 2017 · 5:50 PM PST

2017/12/04 · 17:50

This is only a nuts and bolts diary for those interested in learning more about what actually happened at trial. I urge anyone who is interested in this case to read the briefs and look at the summary of facts and the legal issues. The Opening Brief is now posted online. I believe it is a fairly accurate summary of what I know to be the trial testimony.

The emotions around this case are very high and the facts and details are often lost. No investigative reporters were willing to pay the court reporters for the trial transcript in order to be able to accurately tell the public what happened at trial. I would say that most people will be surprised by some of the facts set forth in the brief that went unreported in the media.

Defense counsel has now filed their brief which, albeit will be subject to bias, is required to accurately summarize the trial transcripts. In 3 months or so, the Attorney General will file an Answering Brief with their summary of facts. In about 3 months after that defense counsel will file a Reply Brief.

It is also quite possible that defense counsel will file a Writ of Habeas Corpus arguing that there were additional facts and arguments that trial counsel failed to investigate or argue. The Court may order the Attorney General to respond to that Writ as well.

The Court will take a year after all the briefs are finished to set argument. There will likely be an oral argument in the Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose in 2019. The Sixth District is very hostile to defendant’s rights and rarely reverses convictions. Practically, I think there is little possibilty of a successful appeal.

Senate Dems Price for Mattis exemption should be Merrick Garland Confirmation

zdefender

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday December 01, 2016 · 4:44 PM PST

2016/12/01 · 16:44

Trump nominated Gen. James Mattis for Secretary of Defense. The only problem with that nomination for Trump is that

To take the job, Mattis will need Congress to pass new legislation to bypass a federal law that states secretaries of defense must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years. Congress has granted a similar exception just once, when Gen. George C. Marshall was appointed to the job in 1950.

To get through a potential Senate filibuster, Trump will need Democratic votes. The price for such bipartisanship, should be a little bipartisanship from Trump and McConnell--confirming Merrick Garland as Supreme Court Justice.

Paraphrasing Dole:"I intend to represent the 54% of Americans who voted against Trump in the Senate"

zdefender

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday November 29, 2016 · 12:18 PM PST

2016/11/29 · 12:18

The year was 1992. The GOP was in shambles. Bill Clinton became the first Democrat to win the Presidency in 12 years. George HW Bush received only 37% of the popular vote. The Democrats controlled the Presidency, the House and the Senate.

Then one man stood up and stymied the Clinton agenda: Bob Dole. Because Perot won nearly 20% of the vote, Bill Clinton had won only 43% of the vote. And Bob Dole made sure everyone knew that Bill Clinton was a minority president.

Bob Dole had already stirred the ashes of George Bush's defeat and found an ember of opportunity.

"Fifty-seven percent of the Americans who voted in the presidential election voted against Bill Clinton," the Republican leader of the Senate declared with his familiar growl, "and I intend to represent that majority on the floor of the U.S. Senate. If Bill Clinton has a mandate, then so do I."

Every Democratic Senator should repeat that quote. It was extraordinarily effective.

Through the filibuster and talk show framing, Dole strangled the Clinton $16.3 billion stimulus as a pork-laden budget buster.

Dole and the GOP pounced on the nomination of Lani Guinier as a “quota queen” and forced Clinton to withdraw her nomination. They quickly forced Clinton to back down from his promise to end the ban on gays in the military.

They killed Clinton’s healthcare reform plan and even proposed a plan of their own which is nearly identical to the ACA that was adopted in 2008.

Clinton paid dearly for underestimating Bob Dole. If we look back at Clinton’s disappointments, many can be attributed to this failure.

Snapped [Clinton] White House political director Rahm Emmanuel: "Yeah, we made a miscalculation. Nobody knew Bob Dole was going to start running for President within the first hundred days."

Bob Dole should be our role model. Cook Political Report currently has the popular vote totals as Clinton 48.2% Trump 46.4% Others 5.4%. Every Democratic Senator should repeatedly paraphrase Bob Dole:

"Fifty-four percent of the Americans who voted in the presidential election voted against Donald Trump, and I intend to represent that majority on the floor of the U.S. Senate. If Donald Trump has a mandate, then so do I."

If the GOP complains, tell them to send their complaints to Bob Dole.

Breaking: Court rules that feds can't prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries and growers [Updated]

zdefender

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday August 16, 2016 · 11:50 AM PDT

2016/08/16 · 11:50

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which covers federal courts in 9 western states just issued an opinion that potentially signals the beginning of the end of the federal government’s war on marijuana. As I have previously blogged here and here and here , the Department of Justice has been defying a Congressional ban on spending funds in ways that interferes with implementation of medical marijuana laws. The continued prosecution by the Obama Administration and the DOJ, of medical marijuana dispensaries and growers in defiance of the Congressional spending ban has set up a potential constitutional crisis.

Today’s ruling clearly slaps down the Obama Administration’s arguments and makes clear that continuing federal prosecutions of medical marijuana dispensaries and growers who are in compliant with state law violates the Congressional spending ban.

The Ninth Circuit remands to the District Court for a hearing on whether the defendants are in compliance. While the defendants had argued that the federal court should not be interpreting state laws and deciding whether growers and dispensaries are in compliance, and that federal prosecutions should be limited to persons acting wholly outside of any state medical marijuana statutes, the remand nonetheless marks a substantial victory for state medical marijuana dispensaries, growers and patients.

Hopefully, the Obama Administration will now recognize they have lost this battle and stop the federal war on medical marijuana.

zdefender

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday August 06, 2015 · 12:16 PM PDT

2015/08/06 · 12:16

As the Washington Post reports secret DOJ memo from February has been obtained by Tom Angell at marijuana.com which now demonstrates that the DOJ misled Congress about the effect of an appropriations rider that ostensibly prohibits the DOJ from prosecuting marijuana cases where the defendant is using, cultivating or dispensing marijuana as part of a state's medical marijuana scheme. The DOJ memo now contends that the prohibition on spending money to prevent states from implementing marijuana schemes only prevents DOJ from prosecuting "states" not individuals or dispensaries. But the memo acknowledges that the DOJ lobbied Congress to kill the bill, by arguing that it would prevent the DOJ from prosecuting individuals and could also hamper recreational marijuana prosecutions.

More below the orange smoke

zdefender

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday April 06, 2015 · 1:16 PM PDT

2015/04/06 · 13:16

As I diaried last week, in December, 2014, Congress passed a funding bill (CR Omnibus) with an amendment proposed by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Dem. Sam Farr from prohibiting the Justice Department from spending any money in 2015 to prevent states "from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana."

As the Seattle PI points out, however, the DOJ is going rogue on medical marijuana and contends that the prohibition is essentially meaningless.

The DOJ responded by stating that the amendment does not prevent prosecution of individuals or dispensaries. Rather, the DOJ claims, it only stops the department from “impeding the ability of states to carry out their medical marijuana laws,” but does not prevent prosecutions of individuals and dispensaries. ... Yes, really.

Congressmen Farr and Rohrbacher have responded that the DOJ's interpretation is "emphatically wrong."

More below the fold

zdefender

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday April 02, 2015 · 3:46 PM PDT

2015/04/02 · 15:46

In December, 2014, Congress passed a funding bill (CR Omnibus) with an amendment proposed by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Dem. Sam Farr from prohibiting the Justice Department from spending any money in 2015 to prevent states "from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana."

A Justice Department spokesman, however, has told the Los Angeles Times that the restriction on medical marijuana enforcement does not apply to individual cases like proceedings against three dispensaries in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said in a statement Wednesday that it did not not believe the amendment applies to cases against individuals or organizations.
Rather, he said, it stops the department from “impeding the ability of states to carry out their medical marijuana laws,” contrary to some claims from people being prosecuted that the amendment blocks such prosecutions.

More below the fold, including who to contact to protest. Read More

The Way Forward on Healthcare & the Economy

zdefender

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday November 05, 2014 · 9:44 PM PST

2014/11/05 · 21:44

We can expect a lot of Republican votes to repeal Obamacare, and a lot of complaints that Obama won't "negotiate" or "meet" with Republicans. Obama should call the bluff, and give a speech on the Republican campaigns to "Repeal and replace."

My Republican colleagues complain about Obamacare, and I acknowledge that there are ways we can make it better. But Republicans keep saying that they want to "Repeal and Replace" "Repeal and Replace." But so far, we only see votes to "Repeal" with no plans to "Replace." If there are any good ideas out there for actually replacing the ACA with something better. Please, show it to me, and show it to the American people, so that we can act on a plan that is better.

zdefender

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday July 26, 2011 · 1:42 PM PDT

2011/07/26 · 13:42

I am so sick of this "Cut Cap and Balanced" alleged "plan" offered by the Republicans. I am looking for the best name to really describe it.

So far my best is (1) Cult, Cracked & Unbalanced. I'm also thinking
(2) Crud, Crap & Baggage
(3) Nuts, Hacks & Bastards
(4) Stud, Craps & Baccarat (for gamblers)
(5) Pus, Cankers and Boils (for dermatologists)

Poll

14 votes Show Results

What should the Republican plan really be called?

14 votes Vote Now!

What should the Republican plan really be called?

Cult, Cracked & Unbalanced

7 votes

Crud, Crap & Baggage

3 votes

Nuts, Hacks & Bastards

2 votes

Stud, Craps & Baccarat (for gamblers)

1 vote

Pus, Cankers and Boils (for dermatologists)

0 votes

Pie

1 vote

Newer
Older

RSS

Repub. Gov. Assoc. "Rule of Law Defense Fund" sent robocalls urging March on Capitol

Is Judge Sullivan required to grant Trump Motion to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn? No.

Will Warren announce MFA will be paid for by "Medicare Premiums?"

Brock Turner Brief

Senate Dems Price for Mattis exemption should be Merrick Garland Confirmation

Paraphrasing Dole:"I intend to represent the 54% of Americans who voted against Trump in the Senate"

Breaking: Court rules that feds can't prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries and growers [Updated]

How DOJ misled Congress on medical marijuana

ACTION: DOJ goes rogue on violating congressional prohibition on medical marijuana prosecutions

ACTION: DOJ vows to violate marijuana law by continuing to prosecute medical marijuana cases

The Way Forward on Healthcare & the Economy

Cult, Cracked and Unbalanced? (w/poll)