reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @JeffClarkUS
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
As many of us argued from the jump, Fani was colluding with the Biden WH, the Biden DOJ, and the J6 Committee. Now the documents have come out providing that to be true. They were withheld from the GA defendants on spurious privilege grounds. A disgrace https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/wedfani-files-georgia-prosecutor-coordinated-trump-case-closely
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
I’ve come into the possession of documents showing that the Arizona AG Office is working on its election lawfare with the group founded by JournoLawfare™️ and color revolution leader Norm Eisen. https://t.co/8pTlgk9gkN
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
This Chinese immigrant lady who escaped communism knows the score and what time it is. She needs her own podcast.
@MJTruthUltra - MJTruthUltra
This little Chinese woman got me fired up 🔥🔥 “Kamawa is sooooo Stoopid”🤣😂☠️ https://rumble.com/v5kc5v6-chinese-trump-supporter-kamawa-is-sooooo-stoopid.html
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
The New York Sun asks the question of how it could have been possible for the Kamala campaign to cut a political ad so soon after Jack Smith's October surprise of a procedurally irregular 165-prebuttal brief. They are suggesting that Jack Smith and the Kamala campaign were coordinating. This possibility must be investigated at the appropriate time. So, be on the lookout, if Trump wins, for the Jack Smith team to "accidentally" erase their cell phones by inputting the wrong password repeatedly, just like Andrew Weissmann did when the Russiagate nonsense petered out. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/doj-foia-release-members-mueller-team-repeatedly-wiped-phones-watchdog-sought
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
Yesterday, I had promised my followers to run a search to see if Kamala Harris had ever argued any appeals -- ever. Even just one. I got busy but have now completed that task. The short answer is "no, never." I could not find any evidence she had ever argued an appeal. I challenge her to cite to the records in such a case and explain why it is not captured in Westlaw, which is the most comprehensive electronic research service in existence. Here's the search I ran in Westlaw, which other lawyers with access to Westlaw can readily replicate: Databases for search: ALLFEDS + ALLSTATES (this searches all reported and many unreported cases in all federal courts AND state courts -- I did not even limit my search as to state courts in California alone). Boolean search terms: adv: ((kamala /3 harris) /2 argued) This first part of that Boolean search finds the universe of all cases where Kamala Harris (including Kamala D. Harris and Kamala Devi Harris -- or any other potential variants of her name) appears. Then the second part of the search narrows that universe down to cases where the word "argues" appears within 2 words of her name. The search returns only 5 cases--see the first picture below. I then manually checked each of the 5 cases returned by the search. In each of those, one of her subordinates argued, not her--see, for example, the second picture below (noting that her subordinate Steve Oetting was the one who argued Flournoy v. Small in the Ninth Circuit -- one of the 13 federal circuits). Practices can vary, but in general, prosecutors -- especially in state systems -- often argue their own appeals. Not Kamala. She never even attempted the feat, which requires the lawyer presenting or defending the appeal to both know the law, think on their feet in responding to questions from a panel of three or more judges, and know the factual record. Westlaw also includes a report about cases worked on. But it goes back only to 2014, and by then she was already AG and doing nothing more than supervising, so nothing about her own chops as a lawyer in her own right can be gleaned from that report. I note that I find it an insult that she sat in judgment on the second Senate Judiciary Committee vote on my nomination to join the leadership of the Justice Department in early 2018 (she voted against me, but I still got out of Committee). Based on my research thus far, she is not a technically accomplished lawyer. I also note that even during my high-level service in the U.S. Justice Department, I continued to argue some cases myself. Legal reporters were puzzled and asked me why several times. I told them that I wanted to keep the saw sharp. That is how real lawyers think and act. I also note that I argued more cases myself personally than any of the other 5 to 6 Assistant Attorney Generals in the Trump Administration running litigating Divisions at Main Justice like I did. (I originally ran 1 Division but eventually simultaneously ran 2 Divisions, which is why I talk about 5 to 6 other Division. The total number of litigating Divisions at USDOJ is 7.) Kamala also takes after her running mate, Joe Biden, who did poorly in law school and was even caught plagiarizing during his studies. (And remember that Kamala failed the bar exam once.) Yet, Biden got to sit in judgment on the Senate Judiciary of both the great Yale Law Professor, constitutional and antitrust scholar, and Kirkland & Ellis partner Robert Bork -- and in judgment of the great and long-service Justice Clarence Thomas -- during their respective confirmation hearings. And yet both Biden and Harris, when they were Senators, acted like royal legal scholars when they were questioning such nominees as Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. It disgusted me at the time and still does. (I watched Bork's nomination when I was in college. I watched Clarence Thomas's the year before I started law school. And I watched Brett Kavanaugh's during a period when I was preparing for an oral argument of my own before the Fifth Circuit, when I was in private practice.) Now, one of our two major parties has nominated Kamala to be President. She wasn't qualified to sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, let alone be Commander in Chief or Magistrate in Chief, or to select future Supreme Court Justices -- which she will select an awful lot of if she gets elected and then packs the Supreme Court, as she has said she plans to do. Lastly, I note that I am still trying to actually lay my hands on a transcript where she first-chaired a trial as a California prosecutor. She and her campaign (@KamalaHarris) could easily assist me and put to rest any doubts about her legal bona fides -- and do so at any time -- by locating such a transcript, uploading it to a storage site, and linking to it on X in response to this post. The challenge to do that is weeks old now. And the days are counting down to the election -- one in which Democrats tell us that she is a sharp-as-nails prosecutor whom the Nation should trust with its highest office and this is one of her main qualifications. That claim is starting to ring very hollow. I hope that America wakes up before it is too late.
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
+1 I formulated another search. Trying to give Kamala every benefit of the doubt. This one is designed to see -- if Kamala prosecuted either hundreds or at least 50 cases -- whether there is any record of a state or federal habeas petition being filed by an inmate to try to get out of custody in a case where she had been the trial lawyer who secured the conviction. Again, the short answer was that there are no such cases. If there had been, the trial transcript for the underlying criminal conviction might have been entered into the habeas case record and I then could have used PACER or state court equivalents to try to locate such a transcript filed as a habeas petition exhibit. I ran the Westlaw search in the same two databases as my prior search tonight (ALLFEDS and ALLSTATES). The search terms this time were: adv: habeas and (kamala /3 harris /p prosecut!) The search returned only 7 cases. It was quite broad in that it's looking for Kamala Harris in the same paragraph as the word "prosecutor" in a habeas case. All of the 7 cases were federal cases, not state cases. And the majority of the 7 cases involved situations where Kamala was just a named formal defendant in her pro forma capacity as California Attorney General. So again, no indication of trial transcripts proving Kamala's prosecutorial prowess in habeas cases. Additionally, this search would have revealed if Kamala had ever opposed a habeas petition filed by someone she'd convicted or helped convict. That question is similarly answered with a big: NADA. No evidence that Kamala ever did anything more than supervise habeas opposition briefs. And given how often habeas petitions get filed -- and the breadth of a cases in a large state AG's office like California's -- she likely never even read, let alone helped draft or edit a habeas petition ever in her entire career.
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
It’s been several weeks and still no Democrat or member of the press has taken up my challenge of posting a transcript of a case that Kamala Harris has prosecuted. I actually asked for the most complex prosecution she’s ever done but at this point, I’ll settle for a transcript of ANY case she’s ever prosecuted. I’m starting to get doubtful that she EVER prosecuted a case through to trial. In any event, calling her a prosecutor as opposed to a paper pusher is starting to look like a huge exaggeration.
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
+1 If Kamala Harris were a J6 defendant, Scott MacFarlane of CBS would have spent days in state courthouses rifling through records to try to find anything incriminating. Or really, to find anything. But the Democrat presidential candidate that’s been anointed by super delegates, not elected, gets zero real vetting. She gets to skate by, no big deal.
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
I also wonder, since heavily armed DOJ Inspector General agents also showed up to raid my house in June 2022, whether the rules of engagement to potentially use deadly force against me were the same. This may also explain why I happened to be raided on a day that my whole family was gone and I was home alone.
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
The January 6 Committee was a legal abomination and yet Peter Navarro will soon have to report to federal prison for resisting its lawlessness. Here is a summary of the House Admin Committee’s Oversight Subcommittee’s new findings about the January 6 Committee and its operations. It was all just a gerrymandered effort to drag down Trump and his allies. Pure politics swirled together with some Hollywood. No Committee like it can ever be allowed to get authorized again. It was all a due process wrecking crew.
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
This is a vitally important story. The lede is that Communist China sponsored the Antifa and BLM 2020 Summer of Love. The buried lede is that the CCP is stirring up the Palestinian protests now. ‘Blood Money’: Meet the Secretive China-Linked Group https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/03/05/blood-money-meet-the-secretive-chinese-funded-u-s-left-wing-groups-driving-chaos-in-our-streets/
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
Thanks @charliekirk11 for calling attention to the 65 Project. It and a group named LDAD are carrying out lawfare against Trump lawyers. I am a target of that campaign. Here’s my piece on the evils of this tyranny and lawyer intimidation. https://revolver.news/2022/03/jeffrey-clark-project-65-david-brock-election-fraud-kill-trump-lawyers-destroy-america/ https://www.revolver.news/2022/03/jeffrey-clark-project-65-david-brock-election-fraud-kill-trump-lawyers-destroy-america/
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
.@julie_kelly2, yes, it's been clear from the outset that the government has been playing games with the verbiage "marked classified" or "classification markings," which is not necessarily the same thing as referring to an unclassified document. Since a document can be unclassified and the markings not necessarily removed. In particular, they were trying to play a game of gotcha if Trump's lawyers were thinking that term was synonymous with "unclassified documents" and had that in mind when they filed certifications that they have found all of the "classified documents." 'Aha, but we didn't ask for all of the classified documents, we asked for all of the documents with "classification markings."' In 2023, this is the level of hyper-technical treatment shown to a former President the career bureaucracy at DOJ hates. It's like playing a high stakes game of Simon Says. "Oops, I gave you a command without saying Simon Says first. You lose." https://t.co/OzpRKwx9CK
@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
Oh footnotes I love you so… From Sept 2022 DOJ motion. It’ll be fun watching this case implode under a trash heap of lies
@JeffClarkUS - Jeff Clark
I'm beginning to read the indictment against Trump. But even three pages in, it's clear that the leaks that preceded the indictment are far too close to what is actually being pleaded by DOJ to be a coincidence. For example, in paragraph 6a on page 3, we hear about the recording of the Bedminster call, which the MSNBC's of the world have been beating a dead horse about for quite a while based on such leaks. This means that Trump lawyers could not possibly be the source of the leaks. Ergo, the leaks are coming from DOJ. They must be investigated and punished. Also, this is grounds for granting a motion highlighting jury pool poisoning and dismissing the indictment before it reaches even its one-month birthday. All of this is so outrageous; it shocks the conscience. It's fundamentally anti-American. Trump Witch Hunt Number ... what? I've lost count. Let's call it Trump Witch Hunt #99. Indictment available here. Read it for yourself. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0.pdf
