Connect with us

Trending

Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis Case in Deep Trouble

Published

on

Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state for Georgia, testified that former president Donald Trump did not ask him to engage in any illegal activity during the 2020 election.

The racketeering case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis against the former president and 18 of his associates is completely destroyed by the debunking of the assertion that Trump asked to “find votes” falsely. Raffensperger stated that the conversation, while “extraordinary,” was a “settlement negotiation” that took place amid a discussion about whether to seek a second recount of votes rather than a demand to add new votes, according to Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School.

“The call was misrepresented by the [Washington] Post and the transcript later showed that Trump was not simply demanding that votes be added to the count but rather asking for another recount or continued investigation,” Turley wrote. “Again, I disagreed with that position but the words about the finding of 11,780 votes was in reference to what he was seeking in a continued investigation. Critics were enraged by the suggestion that Trump was making the case for a recount as opposed to just demanding the addition of votes to the tally or fraudulent findings.”

“Raffensperger described the call in the same terms,” he continued. “He correctly described the call as ‘extraordinary’ in a president personally seeking such an investigation, particularly after the completion of the earlier recount. That is manifestly true. However, he also acknowledged that this was a ‘settlement negotiation’.”

“So what was the subject of the settlement talks?” Turley asked. “Another recount or further investigation. The very thing that critics this week were apoplectic about in the coverage. That does not mean that Trump had grounds for the demand. Trump’s participation in the call was extraordinary and his demands were equally so. However, the reference to the vote deficit in demanding continued investig ation was a predictable argument in such a settlement negotiation. As I previously stated, I have covered such challenges for years as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and Fox. Unsupported legal claims may be sanctionable in court, but they have not been treated as crimes.”

The main argument in Fani Willis’ “racketeering” case, which creates a criminal enterprise out of the process of legally contesting elections, is that Donald Trump called Brad Raffensperger. Trump did not intend to “overturn” an election in an unconstitutional manner; instead, he was looking for a legal remedy for the 2020 election. There does not appear to be any evidence of a criminal offense here; rather, Trump’s political rivals have created a story to prevent him from running for president and to prevent people from choosing him as their leader.


Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Biden Crime Family

Justice Department Finds Transcripts They Previously Denied Existence of in Biden Classified Material Investigation

Published

on

In a significant development, the Justice Department revealed to a federal judge late Monday that it possesses transcripts of President Joe Biden’s conversations with a biographer, contradicting earlier denials. These transcripts are related to the recently concluded criminal investigation into Biden’s handling of classified materials before he became president.

The special counsel, Robert Hur, issued a report in February describing Biden as “a well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” This report has prompted a surge of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and lawsuits aimed at obtaining records related to Hur’s investigation. These requests have come from various news outlets and conservative groups seeking to scrutinize Biden’s mental acuity and fitness for the presidency.

Concerns about Biden’s cognitive abilities were exacerbated by a poor debate performance against Donald Trump, leading Biden to announce on Sunday that he would not seek reelection. It remains unclear how his exit from the race will affect the Justice Department’s handling of the materials from Hur’s investigation.

The Justice Department has argued that releasing the audio of Biden’s interviews would violate his privacy, potentially lead to abuses like deepfakes, and discourage other witnesses from agreeing to recorded interviews. Biden has asserted executive privilege over these recordings to prevent House Republicans from holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to release them.

During a hearing last month, DOJ lawyers informed U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich that processing the audio files of Biden’s interviews with writer Mark Zwonitzer would be highly time-consuming. They claimed that the recordings spanned 70 hours and reviewing audio for classified material is more challenging than reviewing written material.

Justice Department lawyer Cameron Silverberg stated at a June 18 hearing that no transcripts from the special counsel existed. However, Silverberg’s recent court filing revealed that the DOJ had found six electronic files, consisting of 117 pages of verbatim transcripts, created by a court-reporting service from Biden’s discussions with Zwonitzer. Some of these conversations contained classified information, but DOJ policy barred pursuing charges against a sitting president.

In an unexpected reversal, the Justice Department reached out to Robert Hur directly after initially resisting requests from the Heritage Foundation to contact him about materials he used for his report. Hur confirmed he relied on the Biden-Zwonitzer audio recordings and a portion of Biden’s handwritten notes regarding a memo about Afghanistan.

Judge Friedrich has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday morning to address these developments. The Justice Department has indicated it will discuss with the parties seeking access to Hur’s materials whether Biden’s notes should also be processed for potential release.

The Justice Department’s admission of the existence of transcripts in the Biden classified material investigation marks a crucial turn in the ongoing scrutiny of Biden’s handling of classified information. As legal proceedings continue, the implications for transparency, presidential privacy, and the political landscape remain to be seen.

SOURCE: POLITICO

Continue Reading

Trending

Leaked Emails Expose BBC’s Unverified Reporting and Political Bias

Published

on

In a startling revelation, newly leaked internal emails from BBC correspondent Rami Ruhayem have unveiled serious allegations against the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The emails suggest that the BBC has been broadcasting news without verifying claims or seeking evidence, raising concerns about journalistic integrity and ethical practices within the organization.

The leaked emails highlight a pattern of unverified reporting, particularly concerning coverage of the conflict in Palestine. Ruhayem, a Beirut-based correspondent, criticized the BBC for airing sensational stories about alleged atrocities committed by Hamas fighters without proper verification. These unsubstantiated claims were broadcast repeatedly, despite the lack of concrete evidence.

In one instance, Ruhayem detailed how graphic allegations about Hamas fighters were allowed to pass unchallenged on air. “From the start, it was evident that unverified claims of the most atrocious acts by Hamas fighters against Israelis were being circulated and repeated at the highest levels,” Ruhayem wrote. He pointed out that BBC presenters often failed to ask for evidence or clarify that the claims had not been verified.

The emails also accuse the BBC of sensationalizing news stories to push a specific political agenda. Ruhayem suggested that the unverified allegations were part of a broader strategy to garner political support for Israel’s actions. “The BBC’s approach to reporting has contributed to shaping public perception in a way that supports Israel’s actions,” he stated.

Ruhayem’s emails describe how the repetition of unverified and sensational claims served to reinforce extreme portrayals of Israel’s enemies. This biased coverage likely influenced public opinion and political discourse, aligning with Israeli propaganda efforts.

The leaked correspondence reveals deep-seated grievances among BBC staff regarding the organization’s editorial direction. Ruhayem noted that despite numerous evidence-based critiques from staff members, BBC management failed to address these concerns. Instead of fostering thorough examination and inclusive discussions, the management opted to continue the problematic editorial practices.

In an email dated May 1, 2024, Ruhayem wrote to BBC Director General Tim Davie and several departments, detailing the editorial failings. He emphasized the need for mechanisms to ensure accurate and ethical reporting, which he claimed were ignored by the management.

The allegations of journalistic malpractice have significant implications for the BBC’s reputation and credibility. Broadcasting unverified information and sensationalizing stories undermine the core principles of journalism: accuracy, fairness, and impartiality. These practices not only misinform the public but also erode trust in the media.

The leaked emails call into question the integrity of the BBC’s news coverage and highlight the need for rigorous journalistic standards. As the organization faces scrutiny, it must address these issues to restore its standing as a trusted news source.

The bombshell leaks from Rami Ruhayem’s emails expose serious flaws in the BBC’s reporting practices, revealing a troubling pattern of unverified reporting and political bias. As the media landscape continues to evolve, maintaining journalistic integrity and accountability remains paramount. The BBC must take urgent steps to rectify these issues and uphold the highest standards of journalism.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Secret Service Increased Security for Zelenskyy While Denying Security For Former President Trump

Published

on

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s trip to Washington in December 2022 was treated with the utmost importance, featuring extraordinary security measures. Hundreds of law enforcement and intelligence officials were activated, with the U.S. Secret Service leading the effort as Zelenskyy visited the White House and addressed Congress. From the moment he landed, Zelenskyy was accompanied by a Secret Service detail, and this protection continued until his departure. His motorcade was also provided by the Secret Service, assisted by local law enforcement.

Former Secret Service agent Don Mihalek explained that the agency is responsible for protecting all visiting foreign heads of state on U.S. soil. Zelenskyy’s visit was seen as particularly sensitive due to the ongoing war with Russia, raising concerns about potential threats from Russian agents or collaborators.

Security for Zelenskyy’s trip to Capitol Hill was akin to State of the Union preparations, with significant measures implemented. The Secret Service consulted with the Capitol Police, CIA, FBI, and other agencies to ensure safety. Every Capitol Police officer was on standby, given the potential threats.

In stark contrast, former President Donald Trump’s security detail has faced significant challenges in obtaining the same level of resources and personnel. Over the past two years, the Secret Service acknowledged denying multiple requests for increased security at Trump’s events. While the agency provided alternative measures, such as local sniper teams and hand-held magnetometers, Trump’s team felt these were insufficient and inadequate to address the security risks involved.

The recent attempted assassination of Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, has intensified scrutiny. A sniper managed to get rooftop access roughly 150 meters from Trump’s position, raising serious questions about security lapses. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle is facing calls for her resignation, including from House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Despite these assurances, the disparity in security measures for Zelenskyy and Trump has raised significant concerns about the Secret Service’s prioritization and ability to adequately protect high-profile individuals. Trump’s security detail and advisers have repeatedly voiced their frustrations over what they perceive as an unequal allocation of resources and attention.

The decision to prioritize Zelenskyy’s security to such an extent, while denying crucial security enhancements for a former U.S. president, suggests a troubling inconsistency in the Secret Service’s approach to protection. The assassination attempt on Trump highlights the severe consequences of these decisions and underscores the urgent need for a reassessment of priorities and resource allocation within the agency.

The handling of security for Trump, particularly in light of the recent assassination attempt, exposes significant gaps and inconsistencies within the Secret Service. As scrutiny intensifies, the agency must address these failures, ensure equitable security measures for all high-profile individuals, and restore confidence in its protective capabilities. Director Kimberly Cheatle’s leadership and decisions are now under intense examination, and calls for her resignation reflect the gravity of the situation and the demand for accountability.

SOURCES: ABC NEWS, WASHINGTON POST, CNN

Continue Reading

Trending