Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Does justice just stop dead with a corrupt FBI and JustUs Dept?
Source:
Me
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 26, 2016
Author: Hank Rearden
Post Date: 2016-10-26 13:04:37 by Hank Rearden
Keywords: None
Views: 4931
Comments: 33
For discussion, I'm hoping people with Federal legal knowledge or experience can chime in...... Since it's obvious the FBI and JustUs departments have been fully corrupted in service to the Odumbass regime, is there another way to bring the Clinton Crime Family and others to justice? Isn't it possible for a United States Attorney in one of Odumbass's 57 states to convene a grand jury and independently begin an investigation and possible indictments without permission from the very top in D.C.? I'm assuming that somewhere there still remains an officer of the court who retains a sense of justice and duty to the oath they've sworn who might consider such a prosecution no matter the harm to his/her career prospects, of course. They'd need some support from GOPussies suddenly growing balls, but I just want to know if there's a mechanism. Is it really possible that just two, or a handful of, corrupt individuals in Washington D.C. can thwart efforts to bring obvious criminals to justice, forever, and maybe even get elected to the presidency - with no recourse?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
#3. To: Hank Rearden (#0)
(Edited)
Such a saint can file something and be replaced before he can pursue it. And it's dead. Even with Attorneys General, the lieutenants do not get to overrule the general. Congress might remove an AG, but there isn't much probability of this.
Note that I'm asking about US Attorneys, not state or even federal Attorneys General. My understanding is that USAs have a lot of independence and latitude to pursue criminal cases, but I'm hoping to hear from those who know for sure. Ultimately, the decision to indict and try is the grand jury's to make, so I'm hoping it's possible for a USA to bring a case to one without interference. Not whether it's politically feasible, but legally possible for a USA who's brave enough to pursue a criminal prosecution. And yes, presidential pardons can squish anything, but they leave their own sort of legacy stains in their wake, as we saw with Gerald Ford. Odumbass is a pretty gigantic narcissist who might not want to risk that unless he's personally in the crosshairs of a prosecutor. My point is if the US Attorney General, like Toady Lynch, can legally kill any action by a USA seeking to bring a case and evidence to a federal grand jury, our country may very well be fvcked in the long run. We've seen the damage done on the first try the last few years - imagine what our nation will become once they get good at it, if there's nothing to stop them?
No, it is not possible. The government runs on a system of chains of command. The person at the top of the chain of command has ultimate accountability for everything that happens under his/her command, and therefore ultimate authority over it all. A superior can delegate authority, but not responsibility. What this means is that no, a US Attorney cannot "go rogue" and bring charges against a mandate from his/her superiors. He will be immediately stripped of his authority if he tries to do so and, no longer having that authority, will not be able to pursue the case. The Grand Jury, if convened, does not belong to him. And his replacement will simply move for dismissal. Now, I suppose it is possible that a federal judge might insist that proceedings continue, but that would be unprecedented, immediately appealed, and struck down. The checks and balances are political. If a President's administration is corrupt enough, the Congress can remove him through the impeachment process. But if 1/3 +1 Senators - 34 Senators - refuse to vote for removal from office, then there is no further recourse: the President sits and rules, in spite of being corrupt. That is, unless unconstitutional means are used. Yes, the US Attorney General can legally kill any action. Congress can bring a special prosecutor, but the power of that special prosecutor would be limited to what the courts were willing to enforce. Congress can impeach, but a rump of 34 in the Senate can stop it. The check after that is the ballot box, but if that too is corrupted, the final resort is the Second Amendment. But note well: resort was ALREADY MADE to the Second Amendment by half the country in the 1860s, and they got slaughtered. So, in the final analysis, if the government becomes completely corrupt, we are in essentially the same position as the black slaves were in 1790: outnumbered, outgunned, hopelessly outpowered. We will obey and be used for our entire lives, and have no hope whatever of ever gaining our freedom either through political persuasion or through force. Because of Supreme Court control, THIS election will be the last one that matters. If Hillary wins, it is over for good.
Resort was made to warfare by the North, not the South, and they prevailed. As for slaughter, the Union combat deaths exceeded the Confederate combat deaths by about 50%. The total Union casualties also exceeded the total Confederate casualties. For the first 2+ years, the Union army suffered repeated bloodbaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war
As for slaughter, the Union combat deaths exceeded the Confederate combat deaths by about 50%. The total Union casualties also exceeded the total Confederate casualties. For the first 2+ years, the Union army suffered repeated bloodbaths. The North resorted to force - the force of governmental authority, like the police kicking down the door. The South decided that they, civilians, had the right to RESIST the government's resort to force, so they resorted to their 2nd Amendment defensive arms, against the armed assertion of authority by the government. The South fired the first shot at the "police", at Fort Sumter. This, then, caused the police to open fire and continuing firing until the South surrendered. There is no doubt that the Northern military casualties were much higher than the South's. In that era of warfare, with those weapons, as in World War I, the defender had the advantage. The South was defending, in its own territory, and the Union was commanded by boobs until 1863. After that, the death toll in the South rose and rose. Of course non-combattants in the South suffered greatly - from disease and starvation resulting from homelessness and the destruction of civil order. The Northern civilian population did not suffer this. And the bottom line is that the police won. There were heavy casualties, but after some initial scares, the outcome was decisive and final. Could the people today, picking up arms, overthrow the government? Almost certainly not. They could do a lot of damage, inflict a lot of casualties, and die in droves as the war machine turned on its power. The resort to the Second Amendment is a desperate measure. More importantly, the government is not intimidated by the thought. Public officials don't think it would really happen, but if it did, they're sure they would win. So am I. So, what we're left with is the need to win elections and keep control of the government. And to keep doing that with the Republican opposition to social welfare is not possible.
The South decided that they, civilians, had the right to RESIST the government's resort to force, so they resorted to their 2nd Amendment defensive arms, against the armed assertion of authority by the government. The South fired the first shot at the "police", at Fort Sumter. This, then, caused the police to open fire and continuing firing until the South surrendered. The first act of war, commencing the war, is firmly legally established as having been taken by the Union. It was Lincoln's declaration of a blockade which marks the start of the war. The precise dates, and the precise events, of the start and end of the civil war was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870). A blockade is an international act of war. A domestic action would be a closing of the ports. A party cannot declare a blockade of itself. The Confederacy was thus lawfully recognized as a belligerent power, with all the rights that came with said status. Once the international act was taken, Britain, followed by most of Europe, declared neutrality. It is debatable that the first shot was at Fort Sumter as you allege. You do not consider the USS Supply official ship's log of 11 April 1861 which documented that at 9 p.m. the USS Brooklyn landed troops and marines to reinforce Fort Pickens. Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, Series I - Volume 4: Operations in the Gulf of Mexico, page 210. Abstract log of the U. S. ship Supply, January 9 to June 14, 1861, Commander Henry Walke, commanding. April 11. -- At 9 p. m. the Brooklyn got Underway and stood in toward the harbor, and during the night landed the troops and marines on board, to reenforce Fort Pickens. Shots are claimed to have taken place in Florida at Fort Barrancas in January 1861. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/civilwar/misc/barrancas.aspx by Walter Giersbach The firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston's harbor traditionally marks the opening salvos of the Rebellion. But before this assault on April 14, 1861, there was another battle—the first shots of the Civil War—hundreds of miles to the south in Florida. On Jan. 8, 1861, United States Army guards repelled a group of men intending to take Fort Barrancas in Pensacola Harbor. Historians say that this event could be considered the first shots fired on Union forces in the Civil War. [...] The Union army was the police? Federal marshals? The invasion was started under the authority to put down interference with tax collection by a civil disturbance. Under that authority, they officially went to assist the non-existent marshals of the non-existent Federal courts in the Confederate states. The judges had all resigned. The great problem was that there was no invasion under U.S. Const., Article 4, Section 4, and regarding domestic violence, the Federal government required application of the legislature, or the executive, of the State government. Recall W not sending troops into Louisiana until the State gave an invite. These were not like police executing a search or arrrest warrant. And so Lincoln's proclamation did not go out to States, it went out to combinations of individuals, ordering them to disperse from their civil disturbance. And then we had a war to collect the taxes. And, a peaceful secession does not really describe domestic violence. The law had to be tortured for this one. But Lincoln found a way. The Supreme Court was expanded to 10 justices, and Lincoln appointed half of them (Confederates had resigned from the Court). Owning half the Court outright, he was good to go. And then there was this, also on April 11, 1861: http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/Civil_War_Strobridge.asp The U.S. Revenue Marine, Its Cutters, and Semper Paratus By Truman Strobridge "You must give us bigger guns than that, boys," shouted John McGowan of the U.S. Revenue Marine, as the U.S. Coast Guard was known, at the Confederate gunners, when their cannon ball fell short, ricocheted off the water, and bounded completely over his vessel, "or you'll never hurt us." As if in reply, a Secessionist battery on Morris Island fired a heavier gun. The seaman taking soundings felt the ball slam into the hull below him and frantically scurried for safety. McGowan called after him: "You're much safer where you were! Lightning never strikes twice in the same place!" McGowan was commanding a lumbering, unarmed side-wheel freighter manned by merchant seamen but carrying Federal soldiers and military supplies. This ship was far different from the swift, armed revenue cutters in which he had pursued slavers, smugglers, and pirates. Now, on January 9, 1861, as skipper of the Federal-chartered merchantman Star of the West, he was attempting to bring supplies and reinforcements to the besieged Union garrison at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. He expected to use the same sort of trickery as those smugglers whose voyages he had sought to disrupt. Success depended upon secrecy, but this operation was one of the worst-kept secrets of the deepening national crisis. Ample warning and enthusiastic gun crews doomed the venture to failure. Star of the West approached Charleston Harbor at first light. McGowan hoped his vessel would pass for a coastal trader. As soon as the batteries opened fire, he hoisted a second large American flag but, as the ranking Army officer on board observed, "the one was no more respected than the other." The closer McGowan drew to Fort Sumter, the more rapid became the Confederate fire. Realizing the futility of continuing against the well-served shore batteries, McGowan reluctantly ordered his ship out of the harbor. McGowan's rebuff by rebel artillery was the first skirmish of the American Civil War. Just three months later, Abraham Lincoln, new to the presidency but determined to "hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the Government," dispatched warships to relieve Fort Sumter. The angry South Carolinians reacted on April 12, 1861 with a cannon bombardment that forced the fort's surrender two days later and touched off the four-year long, fratricidal struggle. During this action, the U.S. Revenue Marine (USRM) steam cutter Harriet Lane, commanded by Captain John Faunce, USRM, along with the rest of the naval relief squadron, helplessly lay off the bar at the entrance to Charleston Harbor. Not long after her arrival there on April 11th, recalled the famous Civil War correspondent, G. S. Osbon, who had been aboard the cutter at the time: [...] It should be further noted that the Powhatan, the flagship of the mission to Fort Sumter, sailed under British colors and burned British coal. One might say that not only were they not police, they were unlawful combatants, engaged in acts of war, in violation of the law of war. There was no resort whatever to the Second Amendment of the United States by the people in the Confederacy.
Ok, so, we're going to resort to legalism. The North did not follow the then-existing law of war. The South may well have had a "right" of secession. But might makes right, and the North won. This same grand principle: might makes right - that God is on the side of the larger battalions - is also why the Democrats have the advantage in American politics, and will eventually run the table unless the Republicans change their views on the social safety net. The claims of the British government in the American Revolution were also legitimate. So what? They lost. And so their writ no longer runs anywhere in the land they once owned.
Are you saying that God favors the demoncrats ?
All victory is granted by God, for his purposes. I would not say, in general, that God favors the Democrats. I would say that the American electorate has generally done so since the Great Depression, and the cardinal reason FOR that ongoing favoritism of one party over the other is that the Democrats support the social welfare safety net, while Republicans hate it and persistently talk about tearing it down. In a country half in poverty, one cannot win over time with a belief like that. If Republicans want to win, they have to change their minds on that.
There are no replies to Comment # 22. End Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI'm assuming that somewhere there still remains an officer of the court who retains a sense of justice and duty to the oath they've sworn who might consider such a prosecution no matter the harm to his/her career prospects, of course. They'd need some support from GOPussies suddenly growing balls, but I just want to know if there's a mechanism.
#4. To: nolu chan (#3)
(Edited)
#5. To: Hank Rearden (#4)
#6. To: Vicomte13, Hank Rearden (#5)
But note well: resort was ALREADY MADE to the Second Amendment by half the country in the 1860s, and they got slaughtered.
#8. To: nolu chan (#6)
Resort was made to warfare by the North, not the South, and they prevailed.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
The North resorted to force - the force of governmental authority, like the police kicking down the door.
The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second of the 27th of April, 1861, embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, embracing the State of Texas.
USS SUPPLY SHIPS LOG - APRIL 11, 1861
210 OPERATIONS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO.
Barrancas: The First Shots Fired in the Rebellion
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
The United States Coast Guard and the Civil War:
". . . an incident occurred, which I have never seen recorded, but which seems to me worthy of note. A vessel suddenly appeared through the mist from behind the Bar, a passenger steamer, which was made out to be the Nashville. She had no colors set, and as she approached the fleet she refused to show them. Captain Faunce ordered one of the guns manned, and as she came still nearer turned to the gunner. 'Stop her!' he said, and a shot went skipping across her bows. Immediately the United States ensign went to her gaff end, and she was allowed to proceed. The Harriet Lane had fired the first shotted gun from the Union side."
#17. To: nolu chan (#12)
(Edited)
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
" grand principle: might makes right - that God is on the side of the larger battalions - is also why the Democrats have the advantage in American politics "
#22. To: Stoner (#20)
Are you saying that God favors the demoncrats ?
Replies to Comment # 22.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]