Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
“Rather than allowing the criminal process to proceed in the ordinary course, Chairman Jordan and the committee are participating in a campaign of intimidation, retaliation and obstruction,” the suit said, adding that the district attorney’s office had received more than 1,000 calls and emails from Mr. Trump’s supporters — many of them “threatening and racially charged” — since the former president predicted his own arrest last month....
Last month, Mr. Jordan, in his role as the House Judiciary Committee chairman, sent letters with two Republican colleagues that demanded the district attorney’s office provide communications, documents and testimony about Mr. Bragg’s investigation of Mr. Trump. And after Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors last week unveiled the charges against Mr. Trump, Mr. Jordan issued the subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz seeking to compel a closed-door deposition.
And it looks like Bragg is attempting to prove Jordan to be correct.Bragg Sues Jim Jordan in Move to Block Interference in Trump Case
Isn't Jordon one of those who complain about the weaponization of government?
Bragg Sues Jim Jordan in Move to Block Interference in Trump Case
Isn't Jordon one of those who complain about the weaponization of government?
Jordan is attempting to obstruct the prosecution of a criminal case. He's actually breaking the law by doing so.Is he going to claim that he's being persecuted? Jordan is abusing his authority?
Jordan is attempting to obstruct the prosecution of a criminal case. He's actually breaking the law by doing so.
What a fascinating claim because the Klan Act is enforced by the Executive and sanctions are placed by the Judicial. I'm not seeing anything about the Legislative having any power under it. But since that's what you're claiming, perhaps you could tell us exactly whose civil rights DA Bragg is restricting and how?Actually no. Jordan has the authority to investigate Bragg under the Ku Klux Clan Act. You should read it.
I just looked at it and found nothing giving Congress the right to oversee a criminal indictment issued by a state court. The part you appear to be talking about would only allow ex-Pres. Trump to sue DA Bragg and the City of New York for violation of his civil rights -- though I'm not sure what grounds Trump has for that suit. Everything I see in the suit, when it talks about individuals abusing their offices to deny civil rights, grants the ability for them to be sued in the courts -- not for Congress to take action against those individuals.Actually no. Jordan has the authority to investigate Bragg under the Ku Klux Clan Act. You should read it.
What a fascinating claim because the Klan Act is enforced by the Executive and sanctions are placed by the Judicial. I'm not seeing anything about the Legislative having any power under it. But since that's what you're claiming, perhaps you could tell us exactly whose civil rights DA Bragg is restricting and how?
Oh, the section found to be unconstitutional and that largely ended up being repealed? Again, the remaining portions allow a person to sue the offending party -- it doesn't (and even in the original) did not allow for Congressional oversight of a prosecution by a state court. Again, it does not cover what Jordan attempted to do; though it did allow the courts to deal with those involved (not Congress, as you are trying to claim).Section 2. That if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to...or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office or trust or place of confidence under the United States...each and every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high crime...
Oh, the section found to be unconstitutional and that largely ended up being repealed? Again, the remaining portions allow a person to sue the offending party -- it doesn't (and even in the original) did not allow for Congressional oversight of a prosecution by a state court. Again, it does not cover what Jordan attempted to do; though it did allow the courts to deal with those involved (not Congress, as you are trying to claim).
The Congress can investigate anything having to do with Federal law.
That's a bit of a stretch. My interpretation of that section is that it refers to elected officials who are already in appointed or elected office. Donald isn't holding an appointed or elected office so that section doesn't apply to him. As for the "they're trying to get him to not run because they're scared of him" meme, there's nothing that prevents someone charged with, or even convicted of, a crime (other than insurrection) from running for or holding office. I also can't see this section is meaning people running for office can't be charged for crimes they're accused of committing.Section 2. That if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to...or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office or trust or place of confidence under the United States...each and every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high crime...
But the case has nothing to do with federal law. It is based on NY business law, with the upgrade to a felony based on state election law. Not to mention, again, that who State's Rights thing that Republicans pay lip service to.
"...to prevent any person from accepting or holding..."That's a bit of a stretch. My interpretation of that section is that it refers to elected officials who are already in appointed or elected office. Donald isn't holding an appointed or elected office so that section doesn't apply to him. As for the "they're trying to get him to not run because they're scared of him" meme, there's nothing that prevents someone charged with, or even convicted of, a crime (other than insurrection) from running for or holding office. I also can't see this section is meaning people running for office can't be charged for crimes they're accused of committing.
To put it succinctly, in the case of Bragg v. Jordan, I'm going with the guy who actually did pass the Bar.
The Ku Klux Clan act prevents depravation of rights "under color of law". Which is precisely what this is. Alvin Bragg ran for office on a platform of "getting Trump". Lo and behold here we are with Alvin Bragg trying to Get Trump. It reminds me of another case where public statements made by a political candidate were used against him after he assumed office:
Because a reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?