This is a revealing quote, Potter: "Playing by the rules, the justice system built respect for precedents, precedents build up over years. This has meaning. This is how we built this country from its beginning to today using the justice system and the law passed in Congress and by the executive." The problem is that the justice system ha…
This is a revealing quote, Potter: "Playing by the rules, the justice system built respect for precedents, precedents build up over years. This has meaning. This is how we built this country from its beginning to today using the justice system and the law passed in Congress and by the executive." The problem is that the justice system hasn't been playing by the rules in one
overriding area. All of its officials are required to uphold the U.S. Constitution by submitting to the rules of conduct of the legal profession. They haven't. It is standard operating practice for them to gang up on targeted defendants in extrajudicial publicity by colluding with the news media. In the classified document case they did it again in leaks to incriminate the defendant. Worse, they covered it up by hanging the judicial ruling on the technicality of the special counsel appointment.
" It is standard operating practice for them to gang up on targeted defendants in extrajudicial publicity by colluding with the news media.In the classified document case they did it again in leaks to incriminate the defendant. Worse, they covered it up by hanging the judicial ruling on the technicality of the special counsel appointment. "
I don't understand what you are saying or you you are blaming. Who's the "they'?
This case needed to go to trial!!! Hopefully it will however late. The constant delaying by the partisan allied judge is corruption.
Thanks for replying, Potter. The “they” is comprised of Jack Smith and his assistants who illicitly approved of the leaking of incriminating information against Trump along with the FBI who did the leaking. And it extended to all the justice officials who oversaw Smith, including the state bar association who allowed him to participate in this professional misconduct. This type of thing has been going on for 61 years and counting.
Thanks, Potter. It is all documented in the rules of professional conduct, denoting the duties of the prosecutor, the state bar association and the judges of the judiciary that oversee both. All of this is documented in The Runnymede Report's first newsletter. It also includes a diagram that lays out the duty hierarchy. It is extremely revelatory. You can access it online at Substack.
Apparently you do not like special prosecutors. This is what your substack appears to be about. So you sent me to it looking for your specific accusation about Jack Smith OR some general info about SP's that you have made some judgement about with regard to Smith. My separate search turns up nothing regarding your accusation.
Thanks, Potter for your reply. No, there is no dislike for special prosecutors or regular prosecutors. The problem is that there are rules that require them to be penalized, up to and including disbarment, if they break them. This was most infamously performed in 1963 when the DA broke the rules an innumerable number of times. Worse, the judiciary endorsed it. It's all documented in The Runnymede Report's fourth newsletter entitled: "Could the American Judiciary Be This Far Gone."
Hi again, Potter. The rules are specified in my first newsletter. They are the extrajudicial publicity rules that protect the defendant's right to be presumed. Any statement or leak that compromises that right is a violation of the rules.
The most famous leak, though there are other violations, was the photo showing the classified documents by a toilet. These things are plain.
Trump showed these documents to people himself. He called this a witch hunt. The case is for the people who have a right to see the evidence of this accusation. It was necessary. An ex- POTUS stealing documents that belong to the people. There are many more violations on the part of the accused as you know. This claim of yours seems very unworthy of my time and I have not read this anywhere else.
Thanks for getting back, Potter. The focus, from the U.S. Constitution's perspective, is not on the rights of the government, but the rights of the defendant once a prosecution has commenced. Once the government's prosecution is initiated in the violations it alleges the rights of the defendant are triggered. That's where the prosecutor's violations show up. It has been written elsewhere, in the rules of conduct and the Fifth and Sixth Amendment that protect the defendant's rights. Hope this helps, Potter.
This is a revealing quote, Potter: "Playing by the rules, the justice system built respect for precedents, precedents build up over years. This has meaning. This is how we built this country from its beginning to today using the justice system and the law passed in Congress and by the executive." The problem is that the justice system hasn't been playing by the rules in one
overriding area. All of its officials are required to uphold the U.S. Constitution by submitting to the rules of conduct of the legal profession. They haven't. It is standard operating practice for them to gang up on targeted defendants in extrajudicial publicity by colluding with the news media. In the classified document case they did it again in leaks to incriminate the defendant. Worse, they covered it up by hanging the judicial ruling on the technicality of the special counsel appointment.
" It is standard operating practice for them to gang up on targeted defendants in extrajudicial publicity by colluding with the news media.In the classified document case they did it again in leaks to incriminate the defendant. Worse, they covered it up by hanging the judicial ruling on the technicality of the special counsel appointment. "
I don't understand what you are saying or you you are blaming. Who's the "they'?
This case needed to go to trial!!! Hopefully it will however late. The constant delaying by the partisan allied judge is corruption.
Thanks for replying, Potter. The “they” is comprised of Jack Smith and his assistants who illicitly approved of the leaking of incriminating information against Trump along with the FBI who did the leaking. And it extended to all the justice officials who oversaw Smith, including the state bar association who allowed him to participate in this professional misconduct. This type of thing has been going on for 61 years and counting.
specifically what are you referring to... please remind me
Thanks, Potter. It is all documented in the rules of professional conduct, denoting the duties of the prosecutor, the state bar association and the judges of the judiciary that oversee both. All of this is documented in The Runnymede Report's first newsletter. It also includes a diagram that lays out the duty hierarchy. It is extremely revelatory. You can access it online at Substack.
Apparently you do not like special prosecutors. This is what your substack appears to be about. So you sent me to it looking for your specific accusation about Jack Smith OR some general info about SP's that you have made some judgement about with regard to Smith. My separate search turns up nothing regarding your accusation.
Thanks, Potter for your reply. No, there is no dislike for special prosecutors or regular prosecutors. The problem is that there are rules that require them to be penalized, up to and including disbarment, if they break them. This was most infamously performed in 1963 when the DA broke the rules an innumerable number of times. Worse, the judiciary endorsed it. It's all documented in The Runnymede Report's fourth newsletter entitled: "Could the American Judiciary Be This Far Gone."
Please send me the link to yours. Your opinion and assessment of rules that were ostensibly broken or leaks?
I encourage you, Potter, most wholeheartedly, to read the above cited newsletter. It foundationally answers any question you could have.
Please put your response here about what rules and leaks of which you speak. Thank you.
Hi again, Potter. The rules are specified in my first newsletter. They are the extrajudicial publicity rules that protect the defendant's right to be presumed. Any statement or leak that compromises that right is a violation of the rules.
The most famous leak, though there are other violations, was the photo showing the classified documents by a toilet. These things are plain.
Trump showed these documents to people himself. He called this a witch hunt. The case is for the people who have a right to see the evidence of this accusation. It was necessary. An ex- POTUS stealing documents that belong to the people. There are many more violations on the part of the accused as you know. This claim of yours seems very unworthy of my time and I have not read this anywhere else.
Thanks for getting back, Potter. The focus, from the U.S. Constitution's perspective, is not on the rights of the government, but the rights of the defendant once a prosecution has commenced. Once the government's prosecution is initiated in the violations it alleges the rights of the defendant are triggered. That's where the prosecutor's violations show up. It has been written elsewhere, in the rules of conduct and the Fifth and Sixth Amendment that protect the defendant's rights. Hope this helps, Potter.