BLAST FROM THE PAST: LETTING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, OFF THE HOOK.

The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference."

IF THIS IS THE ONLY DEFINITION USED, THE SPECIAL COUNSELS REPORT CLEARS UP NOTHING, AND OPENS UP SOME DISTURBING POSSIBILITIES.

HOW SO?

IF WE ACCEPT THAT THE ABOVE DEFINITION IS THE SOLE MEASUREMENT FOR PROSECUTION, IT LEAVES US WITH  THE FOLLOWING POSSIBLE SCENARIOS:

SCENARIO #1- A RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OPERATIVE ENLISTS A TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKER WITH A PLAN TO AID DONALD TRUMP, BY GATHERING AND DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION THAT IS ANECDOTAL IN NATURE, AND FULL OF INNUENDO AND UNSUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION.

SCENARIO #2- A TRUMP ELECTION OFFICIAL APPROACHES A RUSSIAN NATIONAL,WHO CONDUCTS BUSINESS IN THE U.S. THE REASON? HE ASKS THE BUSINESSMAN IF HE COULD OBTAIN "SPECIAL INFORMATION" THAT WOULD AID DONALD TRUMP IN WINNING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THESE ARE EXAMPLES, NOT ACCUSATIONS. THE POINT IS THIS: IF SCENARIOS LIKE THIS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ONES DID OCCUR, NO LEGAL ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. WHY? BECAUSE IN NEITHER CASE WAS THE DEFINITION OF PROSECUTORIAL CONDUCT MET.

REMEMBER, IN THE ABOVE DEFINITION, THE "TRUMP CAMPAIGN," AND THE "RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT" HAD TO BOTH BE INVOLVED, NOT JUST ONE. THE EXAMPLES OF A TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKER, OR A RUSSIAN BUSINESSMAN, SHOW US THAT "COLLUSION," OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" COULD OCCUR. HOWEVER, THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BEING INNOCENT OF SUCH ACCUSATIONS, AS THE SUMMARY LETTER IMPLIES, WOULD BE VALID, EVEN IF CRIMINAL ACTS WERE PRESENT IN BOTH SCENARIOS.

THE CONCLUSION IS SIMPLY THIS: THE DEFINITION USED BY THE MUELLER COMMITTEE IS SO NARROW, WHEN REFERRING TO "COORDINATION" TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAW(S), THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, AND JUST ABOUT ANYONE ELSE COULD HAVE COMMITTED ACTS OF "CONSPIRACY" OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE", BUT WOULD NOT BE CHARGED UNLESS THERE WAS A FORMAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO. 

THIS DOES NOT EXCLUDE AGENTS OF ONE, OR BOTH, ACTING INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT THE "OFFICIAL " APPROVAL OF THE LEADESHIP. IN FACT, AGENTS OF ONE OR BOTH COULD HAVE BEEN "ENCOURAGED" TO ACT IN A CERTAIN MANNER TO BENEFIT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, BUT WITHOUT AN ACKNOWLEDGED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE "OFFICIAL LEADERSHIP," NO ONE COULD BE CHARGED CRIMINALLY. THIS EXTREMELY NARROW DEFINITION ESSENTIALLY MADE "CONSPIRACY", "COORDINATION", OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Tell the Senate to Eliminate the Undemocratic Filibuster. Bob Fertik, Democrats.com.

 

DAVID - If we want the Senate to better represent us -- and actually act in the interest of the American people, not just the powerful few -- we must immediately eliminate the filibuster. The filibuster is a practice that wasn’t routinely used until recently. As utilized, it requires 60 senators to vote to start and end debate on most bills -- so unless the majority party has secured 60 votes in favor of a bill, a minority of senators can effectively, and sometimes secretly, kill it. In practice, this has meant that a small group of senators -- who represent a disproportionately white minority of the country’s population -- can shut down legislation on anything from voting rights and racial justice to climate change and healthcare. The filibuster is completely undemocratic -- it’s outrageous that a bill supported by the vast majority of Americans can be blocked by a handful of self-serving politicians. It’s a parliamentary trick that’s been used repeatedly to diminish the political power of Black and Brown voters and the lawmakers who represent them. That’s why we’re calling on the Senate to make abolishing the filibuster a priority. This is hardly a radical idea -- the filibuster has changed many times over... major political figures from various ideological backgrounds support eliminating it... and it doesn’t appear in the Constitution, which specifically outlines instances when a supermajority vote is needed. It’d only take a simple majority vote in the Senate to get rid of the filibuster. But unfortunately, some Democratic senators in the new Congress have hesitated to back the idea. That’s why we must let them know that the American people are counting on them to do what’s right for our democracy. If you agree that it’s time to abolish the undemocratic filibuster, add your name today. Thanks for all you do, Bob Fertik

UNDER A TRUMPIAN/PUTIN FASCIST REGIME, WOULD RON JOHNSON HOLD THE POSITION OF OBERFUEHRER OR COMMISSAR?

 A SAD DAY FOR PACKERLAND. 

APPARENTLY ACTS OF TERRORISM, TREASON, AND THE OVERTHROW

OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ARE ALLOWED IF IT BENEFITS THE RUSS-PUBLICAN

PARTY AND DER FUHRER TRUMP.

MILWAUKEE (AP) — Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson is being called racist for an interview in which the white Republican said he wasn’t worried about the predominantly white supporters of President Donald Trump during the deadly insurrection at the Capitol, but that he might have been if they had been Black Lives Matter protesters.

In an interview Thursday with syndicated radio host Joe Pagliarulo, Johnson said of those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 to try to stop Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s electoral victory: “Even though those thousands of people that were marching to the Capitol were trying to pressure people like me to vote the way they wanted me to vote, I knew those were people that love this country, that truly respect law enforcement, would never do anything to break the law, and so I wasn't concerned,” Johnson (R-Wis.) said in an interview on conservative radio host Joe Pag’s show Thursday"Now, had the tables been turned — Joe, this could get me in trouble — had the tables been turned, and President Trump won the election and those were tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and Antifa protesters, I might have been a little concerned," Johnson said.

BELOW ARE A FEW PICTURES OF THOSE: "...people that love this country, that truly respect law enforcement, would never do anything to break the law..."

   

                 

I HAVE TO THANK COMRADE JOHNSON FOR ONE THING: IT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER HEARD OF A U.S. SENATOR "FROM A NORTHERN STATE" ACTUALLY DEFENDING THE ACTIONS OF THOSE CARRYING A CONFEDERATE FLAG AS A SYMBOL OF THEIR IDEOLOGY AND INTENT. TRAITORS, BIGOTS, XENOPHOBES, RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS etc., ARE FOUND EVERYWHERE. THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE PAST: NOW THEY'RE ENDORSED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

YOU REALLY HAVE TO WONDER ABOUT THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL OF SOMEONE WHO USES THE FOLLOWING LINE OF REASONING.

 “Even though those thousands of people that were marching to the Capitol were trying to pressure people like me to vote the way they wanted me to vote..."

JOHNSON ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE KNEW THAT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE:"...were trying to pressure people like me to vote the way they wanted me to vote..."

THIS IS AN IMPLIED THREAT HE WAS AWARE OF, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY THE STORMING OF THE CAPITOL. SINCE HE DIDN'T STAY TO WELCOME THEM, WE MUST ASK THE FOLLOWING:

EXACTLY WHEN DID THE PROTESTORS ACTIONS REVEAL:

- THEIR LOVE OF COUNTRY.

- THEIR RESPECT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

- THEIR UNWILLINGNESS NEVER TO BREAK THE LAW.

WELL, "SENATOR" JOHNSON, I'M SURE THAT PUTIN, TRUMP, GRAHAM, MCCONNELL, AND CRUZ ARE HAPPY TO HAVE A NEW FACE OF FASCISM IN AMERICA.

ABUSE OF PROCESS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. (APPLYING THIS TO THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION)

TAKEN FROM WIKIPEDIA. ( JUST FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES). I'VE OUTLINED CERTAIN KEY POINTS.- DAVID.

An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. In common law it is classified as an intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts.

The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.[1] Abuse of process can be distinguished from malicious prosecution, in that abuse of process typically does not require proof of malice, lack of probable cause in procuring issuance of the process, or a termination favorable to the plaintiff, all of which are essential to a claim of malicious prosecution.[2] "Process," as used in this context, includes not only the "service of process," i.e. an official summons or other notice issued from a court, but means any method used to acquire jurisdiction over a person or specific property that is issued under the official seal of a court.[3] Typically, the person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

Criminal prosecuting attorneys and judges are protected from tort liability for malicious prosecution by doctrines of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity. Moreover, the mere filing of a complaint cannot constitute an abuse of process. The parties who have abused or misused the process have gone beyond merely filing a lawsuit. The taking of an appeal, even a frivolous one, is not enough to constitute an abuse of process. The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose, is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.

Declining to expand the tort of malicious prosecution, a unanimous California Supreme Court in the case of Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal. 3d 863, 873 (1989) observed: "While the filing of frivolous lawsuits is certainly improper and cannot in any way be condoned, in our view the better means of addressing the problem of unjustified litigation is through the adoption of measures facilitating the speedy resolution of the initial lawsuit and authorizing the imposition of sanctions for frivolous or delaying conduct within that first action itself, rather than through an expansion of the opportunities for initiating one or more additional rounds of malicious prosecution litigation after the first action has been concluded."[1]