Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 5087
    MEMBERS
  • 133056
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

118th US Congress Rules & Investigations   The Serious You: How Current Events Affect You

Started 2/11/23 by WALTER784; 68822 views.
Msg 587 of 692
In reply toRe: msg 586
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-5

JUST IN: House Republicans Launch Investigation Into Jack Smith’s Office Meeting with Biden White House Officials

By Cristina Laila
Aug. 29, 2023 5:40 pm

House Judiciary Republicans on Tuesday launched an investigation into Jack Smith’s office meeting with Biden White House officials.
 
Joe Biden’s White House Counsel’s office quietly met with Special Counsel Jack Smith’s aides just weeks before Trump was indicted in the classified documents case.
 
According to visitor logs reviewed by the New York Post, Jay Bratt, a prosecutor on Jack Smith’s massive team, met with Caroline Saba, deputy chief of staff for Biden’s White House Counsel’s office on March 31, 2023.
 
The special counsel’s prosecutor met with Biden’s staffers just days after Obama-appointed judge Beryl Howell ordered Trump’s lawyer to testify before the grand jury.
 
Judge Howell flipped Trump’s own lawyer Eric Corcoran into a witness when she obliterated Trump’s attorney-client privilege in a ruling.
 
Jack Smith indicted President Trump weeks later on 37 charges related to classified documents stored at Mar-a-Lago.
 
This is more evidence that Joe Biden is coordinating with prosecutors to lock up his main political rival Donald Trump – in the middle of an election!
 
House Republicans launched an investigation into this meeting.
 
“The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing its oversight of the Biden Justice Department’s commitment to impartial justice and its handling of a special counsel investigation against President Biden’s chief opponent in the upcoming presidential election. According to recent reporting, Jay Bratt—a Department of Justice employee and top aide to Special Counsel Jack Smith—met with White House officials multiple times, just weeks before Mr. Smith indicted former President Donald Trump. This new information raises serious concerns regarding the potential for a coordinated effort between the Department and the White House to investigate and prosecute President Biden’s political opponents,” they wrote.
 
“In September 2021, Mr. Bratt reportedly met with an advisor to the White House Chief of Staff. Two months later, in November 2021, Mr. Bratt again went to the White House to meet with Administration officials. During this same period, President Trump’s lawyers were negotiating with the National Archives about presidential records from his tenure in office. According to reporting, Mr. Bratt’s 2021 White House meetings related to ‘national security.’ Subsequently, on March 31, 2023, just nine weeks prior to Mr. Smith’s indictment of President Trump, Mr. Bratt met with the White House Counsel’s Office Deputy Chief of Staff Caroline Saba and FBI Special Agent Danielle Ray for a ‘case-related interview.'” the Republicans said.
 
The Judiciary Committee is asking for the following information by September 12, 2023:
 
1. All documents and communications referring or relating to any appointment, meeting, or other visit by Mr. Bratt to the White House or the Executive Office of the President; and
 
2. All documents and communications between the Executive Office of the President and the Department of Justice referring or relating to the investigation and/or prosecutions of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

JUST IN: House Republicans Launch Investigation Into Jack Smith's Office Meeting with Biden White House Officials | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 588 of 692
In reply toRe: msg 587
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-8

GOP rep. calls for impeachment of Biden, Garland and Mayorakas: It’s ‘obvious’

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 589 of 692
In reply toRe: msg 588
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-10

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 590 of 692 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 583
Keltos

From: Keltos

Sep-11

I think the fundamental issue is whether they can keep him off the primary ballots.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 591 of 692
In reply toRe: msg 589
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-11

You can't make this stuff up:

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 592 of 692 to KeltosKELTOS 
In reply toRe: msg 590
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-11

They won’t be able to keep him off the ballots. It’s unconstitutional for states to decide someone can’t appear on a ballot for a presidential election.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 593 of 692 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 592
Keltos

From: Keltos

Sep-11

Are there court rulings to support this, or is it your personal view?

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 594 of 692 to KeltosKELTOS 
In reply toRe: msg 593
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-11

They want to use Amendment 14 Section 3 to remove Trump from the ballot but it’s a stretch to make it fit and would trigger legal challenges. It would destroy the 2024 election because they can’t hold an election without Trump on the ballot while it’s being revised by a court or u til it’s resolved.

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 595 of 692 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 594
Keltos

From: Keltos

Sep-11

But the proponents of this are many and they seem serious, so I am still concerned. It is also being conducted at a state by state level increasing the chances that it would succeed in some states. He wouldn't have to be off the ballot for every state. At some point there would be a critical point where he would be off too many state ballots to wage a credible campaign. And I think that point would be fewer states rather than more.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 596 of 692 to KeltosKELTOS 
In reply toRe: msg 595
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-11

If he’s off the ballot in any state it will damage the election, as well as the system.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Keep Reading
TOP