Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Democrats' Problem With Impeachment

Post 54 (6/25/19)

Lately, I haven't heard much coming from the Democratic leadership in Congress about impeaching President Trump. What is going on? A few weeks ago all you heard from many of the Democrats was how Trump deserved to be impeached based on his obstructive conduct during the Mueller Investigation. I think we all are familiar with Trump's alleged misconduct documented in Mueller's report. I don't have to state it here. I have already stated in prior posts in this blog why I believe impeachment is not a good idea. You will also find in many of my prior posts that I bash the Democrats for their hypocrisy and dishonesty. There is a good reason for my Democrat bashing. They deserve it. To her credit, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has always stated that she was against impeachment. However, many other leading Democrats in Congress were initially very enthusiastic about this impeachment nonsense. This enthusiasm seems to have tapered off. Democrats like Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee; along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff have all been very forceful in their support for the impeachment of President Trump. The reasons given for impeachment range from holding the President accountable for his crimes, Congress' obligation under the Constitution to exercise oversight of the President and because of the notion that no one is above the law. Now these would all be good reasons to impeach Trumps if in fact his conduct reached the high standard for impeachment set by the Constitution that requires treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. Just as I believed with Bill Clinton, I don't think the constitutional standard is met with Trump's conduct. I have said this before and I am saying it again. My position on impeachment and my condemnation of the Democrats' hysteria surrounding Trump's conduct should not be taken as my support for Trump. The Democrats are all about putting on a show for the media and for their base of Trump haters. They should not be taken serious about anything, clearly not about impeachment. 
As I note in the title of this post, the Democrats have a huge problem with impeachment. Many of the top Democrats in Congress, Speaker Pelosi, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff are part of a criminal conspiracy by members of Congress to obstruct justice by covering-up several felonies committed by San Jose city officials and several federal court officials during litigation of two racial and disability discrimination lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose. I am black/African American. It is the misconduct of the Democrats that I just mentioned that rises to the constitutional standard for impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors. It is they who are more deserving of impeachment than President Trump. Speaker Pelosi, Senators Feinstein and Harris, Congressmen Nadler and Schiff all received letters from me asking that the Senate and House Judiciary Committees open investigations into my allegations against San Jose city officials and the federal courts. No investigation has been opened, even though I presented each with incontrovertible facts and evidence to support my allegations. The facts and evidence I presented prove without a shadow of doubt that San Jose city officials conspired with my attorney and the courts to falsify court records, create false documents, and stage a phony hearing on a motion I filed. A fraudulent transcript and civil minutes were then created for that hearing. At least one city official and my attorney was bribed for their participation. In addition to the criminal acts committed, the courts failed to follow several federal statutes and binding precedent while making rulings in favor of the City of San Jose in both of my lawsuits.
The Democratic leadership in Congress should be very careful with how they handle this move to impeach President Trump based on the impeachable offenses they are committing by covering up the very egregious conduct of the City of San Jose, the US District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Not only would they look like hypocrites if they impeach Trump, there could be political and legal ramifications for them as well for their criminal cover-up. They should be aware that I have no intent of allowing this scandal to simply be ignored. They have reason to worry.

Thursday, June 6, 2019

The Liars' Club

Post 53

YOU CAN'T OBSTRUCT JUSTICE WHEN THERE IS NO JUSTICE TO OBSTRUCT

Just when you think you've seen it all when it come to hatred for Donald Trump, you get this statement supposedly signed by several hundred former federal prosecutors stating that they believe the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice. These former prosecutors, if in fact they are former prosecutors, are all big liars. This ridiculous statement has zero credibility from the word go. I know a solid one half of the country, maybe more, will buy into this false narrative being pushed by these presumed to be former prosecutors. At least one Republican Congressman has joined the Democrats in support of this lie. But I am going to completely destroy their claim with facts that are hard to dispute.

I'm no big fan of the President. But I don't hate him. I was no big fan of Hillary Clinton. But I don't hate her. I'm no fan of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. But I don't hate them. I'm no fan of Lindsey Graham and the Republicans. But I don't hate them. Here is the point I'm painstakingly trying to make. I don't take sides when it comes to politicians and government officials. I am a tribe of one. I only take the side of what I believe is right. My response to this statement purportedly made by these persons claiming to be former federal prosecutors is not about defending or showing support for Trump. It is about exposing the lack of integrity and honesty of these so called former prosecutors.

As I promised, I'm going to destroy the ridiculous claim by these so called former prosecutors that any other person that's not President Trump would be indicted on multiple charges for obstruction of justice. The basis of their claim is that the Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming.

Here's where the false narrative falls apart. First and foremost, it is not possible from a legal standpoint to obstruct justice during an investigation that's illegitimate, and is based on fraud and justice was never the intent. It is similar from a legal standpoint that you can't be guilty of resisting an arrest that is unlawful. I could rest my case now, but the best is yet to come. Doesn't these so called former prosecutors remember the Hillary Clinton email investigation? After she was issued a subpoena to preserve evidence, she deleted over thirty thousand emails, destroyed computer hard drives and other communications devices with the clear intent to obstruct the truth-finding process. I think the chances are one hundred percent that there was classified information in those deleted emails and communication devices that were destroyed. The evidence of her corrupt intent and the connection to a pending proceeding was overwhelming and indisputable. Since Hillary Clinton was a person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, why wasn't she indicted? The fact that Clinton wasn't indicted discredits the claim that any other person would have been charged under similar circumstances described in Mueller's report. The case for obstruction against Clinton was a lot stronger than the case for obstruction against Trump. Yet, over half of the voters and all of the Democratic elected officials in Congress were willing to elect her President. Now you have a significant number of Democratic Members of Congress wanting to impeach Trump for conduct far less reprehensible than Clinton's. I could rest my case here, but I'm not; because the evidence that proves that these so called former prosecutors are liars gets even gets better.

Beginning in 2014, long before there was a Trump Presidency, I filed a complaint with the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. against San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based on their conduct during the litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City that obstructed justice. The evidence that these officials obstructed justice is extensive and demonstrates a total disregard for the judicial process and the rule of law. Now keep in mind the elements of an obstruction charge according to the so called former prosecutors: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process. During litigation of my lawsuit, the City of San Jose ("City") and the U.S. District Court in San Jose conspired to obstruct the truth-finding process. Two City officials were told to lie under oath during their depositions. They, in fact, told several lies on material issues during their depositions. The District Court essentially ordered the City to file a motion for summary judgment that was a total fabrication. The City was allowed to enter into a fraudulent agreement with my attorney, who received a quid pro quo, to dismiss a defendant that clearly violated my rights. The purpose of this dismissal was to prevent the court from ruling on the discriminatory acts of the defendant and his superior. The facts alleged in the City's motion for summary judgment were not only false, they contradicted the true facts the City had already admitted to in it's answer to my complaint/lawsuit. To put it plain and simple, the District Court told the City to lie in it's motion for summary judgment, and to enter the fraudulent stipulation of dismissal with my attorney. Of course, the City's motion was granted by the District Court. Now how's that for obstructing the truth-finding process? But there's a lot more. After I filed my own motion under FRCP Rule 60 seeking relief from the judgment of the District Court based on the fraud that was perpetrated, the District Court and the City further obstructed justice by falsifying several docket entries by falsely stating that my motion was contesting the court costs awarded to the City, instead of fraud. I was told by a court official on two different occasions that there would be no hearing on my motion; and that my motion would be decided on the papers filed by me and the City. In clear contradiction of what I was told, a hearing was held on my motion without my knowledge. During the hearing, the City was granted a motion to dismiss because I failed to appear for the hearing, even though, I was told specifically that I did not have to appear for the hearing. The word for word account of the City's motion to dismiss was left out of the transcript of the hearing. The City's motion to dismiss supposedly made during the hearing is a complete mystery. The civil minutes reflects that something totally different happened during the hearing on my motion when compared to the transcript. The civil minutes reflects that the court ruled during the hearing that it would deny my motion and submit a written order at a later date. It is indisputable that the conduct of San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court as described above meets and exceeds the elements for an obstruction charge outlined in the statement of these so called former prosecutors.Yet, my complaints to the Department of Justice , the F.B.I, and the U.S. Attorney's Offices in San Francisco and San Jose have not been investigated, have not resulted in any indictments, nor have I received a response stating why there hasn't been any action taken on my complaints.

What has been presented here are the incontrovertible facts that discredit the claim by these so called former prosecutors that the conduct of President Trump as described by Mueller would have resulted in an indictment for any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President.These alleged former prosecutors are Trump haters and members of the Liars' Club with an ax to grind. For me, it's not about Trump, Clinton, the Democrats or Republicans. The reason I'm responding to this lie by these claiming to be former prosecutors is that I expected that, as a black person that grew up in the South during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era, the federal courts would protect my constitutional rights. This has been the farthest thing from the truth. What happened to me when I sued the City of San Jose for violating my rights based on my race and disability is a disgrace. As I described above, City officials and officials in the U.S. District Court went out of their way to obstruct the truth-finding process with the corrupt intent to obstruct justice by covering up the racism and bigotry of the City. Not only am I angered by the false statement by these so called former prosecutors, I'm deeply offended as well. I now rest my case. For more information, refer to my prior posts and my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/


Tuesday, June 4, 2019

It's Public Corruption Stupid!

Post 29/29 - February 21, 2018

 This past Friday (2/16/18), a grand jury, at the request of Special Counsel Robert Meuller, indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for meddling in the past presidential election through the use of social media.Those indictments appears to be nothing more than a political statement and publicity stunt that's meant to distract attention from the many scandals now plaguing the FBI and DOJ. There is a very slim chance that the Russians will be brought to trial on any of the charges in the indictments because it is unlikely they will be extradited to this country. Yet, many members of Congress and the media were pleased to learn about the indictments. It's unbelievable that many of them continue to express outrage at Russia's meddling into our election when all of the evidence presented so far shows that it had little to no impact on the outcome of the election. Their support of Meuller's investigation is based on the belief that we were attacked by the Russians when they interfered in our election. There is also support by some because it puts Trump in the hot seat. As for me, I'm highly suspicious about the Meuller investigation. It was started when fired FBI director James Comey leaked a memo to the media suggesting that Trump tried to shut down the investigation into fired NSA director Michael Flynn. Comey even admits that he leaked the memo in order that a special counsel would be appointed. Had Comey not been fired, there would be no special counsel investigation into possible Trump-Russia collusion. Because the investigation appears to be in retaliation for the Comey firing, it does not excite me at all, even though I believe that Comey should not have been fired. The big question for me is why was there no concern from politicians and the media about Trump colluding with the Russians prior to him firing Comey?

To me, it has always been dubious that Russia's meddling posed such a great threat to our democracy. I wrote a post on July 31, 2017 and another one on August 26, 2017 explaining my position that this scandal might be overblown and that there were other threats to our democracy greater than Russia's interference in our past presidential election. Some of you might remember the slogan from one of former president Bill Clinton's campaigns stating "t's the economy stupid." So if you ask me what is a greater threat to our democracy than the Russian interference in our past election, "It's public corruption stupid."