Of Parental Rights: What Amy Coney Barrett Did Not Disclose On Her SCOTUS Confirmation Hearing Application: "How Did You Get Those Tiny Haitian Humans?"

Well, I guess it is just pro forma when you take a foreign oath of fealty to intentionally omit how you traffic tiny humans.

John Roberts did it, so why not Amy?

Besides, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops need her on November 4th to cloak the stealin' the children, land and vote, more readily recognized as gerrymandering.

If not, the heavens shall fall and Catholic Charities will no longer be able to acquire goods to procure and purvey tiny humans through Foster Care and Adoption, making all the assets of their tiny human trust funds, toxic.

Not one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Amy how she got those tiny Haitian Humans.

#maytheheavensfall

Some White colonizers "adopted" Black children. They "civilized" these "savage" children in the "superior" ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity. https://t.co/XBE9rRnoqq

— Ibram X. Kendi (@DrIbram) September 26, 2020

$10M to Dr. Ibram Kendi and the Center for Antiracist Research at BU. This research will inform and fuel much needed and overdue policy change. I appreciate you Dr. Kendi, and I’m grateful for your work! https://t.co/M2zvIQYeEO

— jack (@jack) August 20, 2020

Amy Coney Barrett initially failed to disclose talks on Roe v. Wade hosted by anti-abortion groups on Senate paperwork

(CNN)Judge Amy Coney Barrett initially failed to disclose two talks she gave in 2013 hosted by two anti-abortion student groups on paperwork provided to the Senate ahead of her confirmation hearing to become the next Supreme Court justice.

Barrett, President Donald Trump's nominee to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, gave the talks -- a lecture and a seminar -- in 2013 in her capacity as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. The seminar was co-sponsored by the school's Right to Life club and constitutional studies minor, and the lecture was held by the law school's Jus Vitae club. CNN's KFile found advertisements for two lectures on social media and in a weekly Notre Dame faculty newsletter.

Late on Friday night, hours after this story published, the Senate Judiciary Committee released a supplemental update to Barrett's committee questionnaire that includes the lecture and seminar, as well as a paid advertisement she signed that criticized Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed support for Notre Dame's "commitment to the right to life." The release came after CNN asked the White House about the advertisement earlier on Friday.

It is not known what was said in the two events, though both centered on abortion court cases. In a separate instance, CNN's KFile found a publicized talk that Barrett gave to coincide with the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade -- a seminar Barrett disclosed in her Senate paperwork -- was removed by the university from YouTube in 2014. A school spokesman told CNN the video is now lost.

Content by CNN Underscored

Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court would strengthen its current conservative majority -- creating a 6-3 bloc of conservative justices -- and could limit abortion access.

Barrett's initial failure to disclose the two events also raises questions about whether the questionnaire is complete or whether there will be any consequences from the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees her confirmation hearing. Past chairmen of the powerful committee have halted the nomination process after judicial nominees omitted information in their Senate paperwork but under committee Chairman Lindsey Graham that scenario is unlikely.

The committee has slated a hearing for Barrett on October 12 in an effort to confirm her by the full Senate before the election.

Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department this week that said Barrett did omit materials concerning Roe v. Wade and asked if Barrett omitted any more materials after the National Review reported that Barrett signed a letter on a "right to life" ad in 2006 that called for the end of the landmark legal decision.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere told CNN in an email, "Judge Barrett submitted her lengthy Senate Judiciary Questionnaire, spoke with an overwhelming majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and continues to be transparent throughout her confirmation process. She looks forward to answering questions from the Senators next week."

A spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee told CNN "it is a very normal practice" for Supreme Court nominees to update their questionnaire, noting that several current Supreme Court justices also supplied updated copies.

CNN reached out multiple times to Barrett through her law chambers but did not get a response.

While Barrett's association with anti-abortion groups has come under scrutiny -- including signing a Right to Life ad in 2006 -- little has been examined about her work with anti-abortion groups at Notre Dame. Barrett gave the talks hosted by the anti-abortion student groups while she was also a member of the Notre Dame chapter University Faculty for Life, which staunchly opposes abortion.

In 2016, the group sent a letter asking the university to rescind an award honored to then-Vice President Joe Biden in recognition for his work as an American Catholic. The group called it "a scandalous violation of the University's moral responsibility (as the American bishops wrote in 2004) never to honor those who act in defiance of fundamental moral principles about the sanctity of life" and attacked his views on abortion.

Barrett initially failed to disclose two seminars she gave students on Roe v. Wade

In April 2013, Barrett gave a small hour-long seminar "for students on changes to law and life for women after Roe v. Wade" entitled "Being a Woman After Roe."

According to a copy of the Facebook event advertising the seminar, spots were limited to 15 students. A student publication promoted the event as an informal seminar, small group setting in which students can learn more from faculty members who oppose abortion.

"The Right to Life Seminar Series was begun as an opportunity for students and professors to discuss a variety of issues related to human life and dignity," an advertisement for the event reads.

The conservative judge also did not disclose that in November 2013 she spoke to Jus Vitae, the law school's Right to Life club, on "The Supreme Court's Abortion Jurisprudence." The law school advertised the lecture as focusing on Roe v. Wade and the cases that followed it, including cases that were being litigated on the lower courts at that time.

The lecture Barrett did disclose was entitled "Roe at 40: The Supreme Court, Abortion, and the Culture War that Followed," taking place in January 2013 and open to the university community. It was co-sponsored by the university's Constitutional Studies minor.

However, video for the lecture, which CNN's KFile found on the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine was advertised by the school as being available on YouTube, was removed by the user in 2014, according to a YouTube spokesperson.

Of 11 lectures publicized as available to watch on the school's event, only Barrett's was removed from YouTube.

After CNN inquired to obtain video of the event, a university spokesperson, Dennis K. Brown, told CNN, "We have checked with the organizer of the event [sic] have no information on what has become of the video of that lecture."

Several on-campus publications covered the event and Barrett's remarks at the time.

The Observer, Notre Dame's student newspaper, wrote that Barrett said, ''I think it is very unlikely at this point that the court is going to overturn Roe as curbed by [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey. The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand," she said.

The Irish Rover, a student publication covering Catholic identity, quoted Barrett as saying, "whether or not Roe gets overturned is irrelevant," saying the question of abortion would return to the state level and could still be legal in certain states.

Anti-Biden letter

As Barrett gave talks on abortion to groups associated with the on-campus Right to Life groups, Barrett was also a member of the university's chapter of the University Faculty for Life from the group's founding in 2010 until 2016, according to her Senate paperwork.

While she was a member of the group, the group unanimously passed a resolution for a letter calling on the university to rescind an award given to then-Vice President Biden because of his beliefs on abortion.

"Notre Dame claims to award the Laetare Medal 'annually to an American Catholic in recognition of outstanding service to Church and society,'" the letter reads. "But our Faculty for Life Chapter agrees with Bishop Kevin Rhoades that the awarding of the Laetare Medal to Vice-President Biden is a scandalous violation of the University's moral responsibility (as the American bishops wrote in 2004) never to honor those who act in defiance of fundamental moral principles about the sanctity of life."

The faculty letter attacks Biden's position on abortion for not wanting to "impose" the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion upon a woman or a doctor, supporting the death penalty and for rejecting "the truth that human life begins at conception." It also states that public officials like Biden have "an especially grave duty to preserve" life.

Amy Coney Barrett Senate Questionnaire Supplement by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Preserving the residuals of the peculiar institution is just the work of the foreign tax exempt god.

Praise the lord.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Watergate 2.0: John Dean Is Back

John Dean is back 



#maytheheavensfall

United States District Court, D. MarylandDec 1, 1999Civ. No. JFM-97-946 (D. Md. Dec. 1, 1999)

Civ. No. JFM-97-946.

December 1999.

MEMORANDUM

J. FREDERICK MOTZ, United States District Judge.

Defendant G. Gordon Liddy has filed a renewed motion to transfer this case to the District of Columbia. The motion will be granted.

This case arises out of allegedly defamatory remarks that Liddy made about plaintiff Ida Maxwell Wells. Liddy has publicly articulated a theory that the Watergate burglary was prompted by a desire to obtain information about a call-girl ring being operated at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. According to the theory espoused by Liddy, Maureen Dean, John Dean's wife, is said to have been one of the call girls. Pictures of Maureen Dean and the other call girls allegedly were kept in Wells' desk. Dean allegedly instigated the break-in to recover the photographs.

The Deans filed an action for defamation against Liddy and others in 1992 based upon Liddy's public statements about the call-girl theory and other alleged libels against John Dean. The case was originally instituted in California but was transferred to the District of Columbia upon a motion to transfer filed by Liddy. Wells instituted the present action in 1997. Liddy moved to transfer it to the District of Columbia as well. Initially, I denied the motion. Two factors figured heavily in my decision. First, the Dean case was then dormant and had been for several years. Second, Wells asserted that she "has a very simple case" and that the "case does not depend upon any testimony from the Deans. . . ."

Circumstances have changed since I denied Liddy's original motion to transfer. Wells has now twice named Maureen Dean as a witness despite her prior representation that her case does not depend upon the testimony of the Deans. Although Wells has withdrawn Mrs. Dean's name from the witness list on both occasions, the interrelatedness between this case and at least a portion of the case instituted by the Deans in the District of Columbia has now become apparent. More importantly, the Dean case is no longer dormant. It has been reassigned to Judge Emmett Sullivan who has set a firm trial date of May 5, 2000.

Wells argues that I cannot transfer this case to the District of Columbia because it could not have been instituted there originally, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), since venue and personal jurisdiction over Liddy are lacking in the District of Columbia. This argument is unpersuasive. Liddy has substantial contacts with and engages in a persistent course of conduct in the District of Columbia. Also, the original complaint alleged acts of defamation committed over an Internet website maintained by an organization located in the District and through Liddy's nationwide radio shows. Moreover, prior to Wells bringing suit, Liddy had already purposely availed himself of the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia by initiating the transfer of the Dean litigation. In addition, the federal district judge in California found it was appropriate to transfer the Dean case to the District of Columbia.

I also note that the events underlying the Watergate burglary (in which Liddy was personally involved) occurred in the District of Columbia.

Therefore, this case can be transferred to the District of Columbia. The remaining question is whether it should be transferred. In making this determination I must consider a variety of factors, including the plaintiff's choice of forum, the convenience of counsel and the witnesses, the relative ease of access to sources of proof, and the public interest. See, e.g.,Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947); Dickens v. United States, 862 F. Supp. 91, 92 (D. Md. 1994). The first of these factors obviously weighs against transfer; plaintiff has chosen to bring her action here in Maryland. The second and third factors weigh slightly in favor of transfer since lead counsel for both parties have their offices in the District of Columbia, many of the witnesses live in the District of Columbia area, and none of the witnesses live in the Baltimore area. However, since the District of Columbia and Baltimore are so close to one another, this factor is negligible.

I find the public interest factor dispositive. There is some overlap between this case and the Dean case, and it may be that they should be consolidated. Liddy vigorously argues that they should be; Wells argues just as strongly to the contrary. These conflicting positions essentially boil down to this: Liddy asserts that he should not be subjected to the cost of litigating (and to the risk of inconsistent results) in two different cases that arise, at least in part, from the same nucleus of facts. Wells acknowledges (as she must) that one aspect of the Deans' claims arises, as do her claims, from Liddy's public statements promoting the call-girl theory of the Watergate burglary. She points out, however, that the Deans' claims involve many other issues as well (apparently arising out of Liddy's broad assertions that John Dean committed "massive perjury.") Wells understandably does not wish her discrete claims to be eclipsed or compromised in the shadow of the larger Dean case.

Wells also expresses a concern that her costs of litigation will be much greater if she becomes embroiled in the trial of the Dean case since it is estimated to last longer than her own trial. While this may be true, a countervailing factor is that Wells' counsel is also local counsel for the Deans and will be participating in the trial of the Dean case in any event.

It would seem to be in the interest of the economic use of judicial resources for the two cases to be consolidated if they can justly be tried together. However, in transferring this action to the District of Columbia, I am expressing no view as to whether consolidation is appropriate. I have no jurisdiction over the Dean case and am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the Deans' claims to know whether Wells would be unfairly prejudiced by a single trial. It is clear to me, however, that it is in the public interest to have the case transferred so that Judge Sullivan, who has been actively presiding over the Dean case and has become fully familiar with it, can be given an opportunity to decide whether consolidation would be appropriate. If Judge Sullivan decides in favor of consolidation, the single trial can go forward in May. If, on the other hand, he decides that consolidation is inappropriate, Wells can file a motion to transfer the case back to Maryland, the forum of her original choice, on the ground that the sole reason for my transfer was to allow Judge Sullivan to rule on the consolidation issue.

Of course, it would be up to Judge Sullivan to decide a motion to re-transfer the case to Maryland. However, lest there be any uncertainty on this score, I affirmatively state that I would be fully amenable to having the case transferred back to Maryland in the event Judge Sullivan decides against consolidation. If it were not for the fact that I believe it to be in the public interest for Judge Sullivan to consider the consolidation issue, I would have respected Wells' choice of forum and ruled against the transfer. Moreover, it is against my own sense of responsibility to ask another judge to try a case that is properly before me. To that end, I will hold on my calendar the September 11, 2000 trial date I have set, so that, in the event Judge Sullivan denies consolidation and decides the case should be transferred back to Maryland, he and the parties can be assured that no unnecessary delay will occur.

A separate order effecting the ruling made in this memorandum is being entered herewith.

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is, this ______ day of December 1999

ORDERED

1. Defendant's renewed motion to transfer is granted; and

2. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Roger Stone Is Going To Church

Yes, the church I Pastor in Mount Juliet, TN is having Roger Stone share his testimony of conversion and I approve this message. 🔥 pic.twitter.com/2Jg5RI4uex

— Pastor Greg Locke (@pastorlocke) August 11, 2020

https://www.globalvisionbc.com/

https://tnbear.tn.gov/Ecommerce/FilingSearch.aspx

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Attorney Marcus Mumford Leaves Humanity But Never Allowed Ammon Bundy To Tell His Tale In The Trafficking Of Tiny Humans Network

Ammon Bundy has a tale that has never been told, possibly for the simple fact that he did not know who to tell it to.

Ammon knows what was going on with children in foster care.

Ammon alludes to a possible border babies child trafficking network and the nasty things people in foster care do.

Larry Klayman may know what Ammon is trying to tell.

Bundy Ranch Peter Santilli Files DC Attorney Grievance Against Judicial Watch Larry Klayman For Fraud

Final defendant sentenced in Bundy ranch standoff in Nevada

LaVoy Finicum has an untold history as a professional foster parent, his source of income, who was known for doing nasty things to tiny humans in foster care.

Ammon Bundy leaves militia movement after ripping Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric

Ryan may also have a tale to tell.

Ryan Bundy, figure in rancher standoff with feds, running for Nevada governor

Koch industries had a substantial interest in the land of the Bundy Ranch, but not the Bundys.

There is a need to focus on the attorneys involved in the Bundy Ranch.

There is also a need to re-examine Joe Arpio, as there are rumors that the Maricopa County Sheriff is involved in the network of trafficking tiny border babies to do nasty things.

Joe Arpaio's Pal Ammon Bundy Leads Takeover of Federal Building in Oregon

Joe Arpaio’s prison was a circus of cruelty. Now his values are spreading

Trump, with advice from Roger Stone, pardoned Ammon and Joe Arpio.

Joe Arpaio has a very interesting history in relation to international trafficking tiny humans which seems to originate with the attorneys.

https://beverlytran.blogspot.com/search?q=joe+arpaio

Ammon Bundy's lawyer quotes from Western film, mocks federal prosecutors in last-minute legal motion

Marcus Mumford made a mockery in his representation of Ammon, but the question is not why, but, what trafficking tiny humans activities was he covering up.

Marcus Mumford, attorney who represented Ammon Bundy in federal court in Oregon, found dead in Utah home

Marcus Mumford

Marcus R. Mumford, the Utah attorney who successfully represented Ammon Bundy in federal court in Portland, was found dead in his home Monday morning.

A colleague and friend who had stopped by Mumford’s home in Salt Lake City to bring him breakfast and discuss a case found Mumford, said Mumford’s sister-in-law, Katie Mumford.

Mumford, 46, lived alone. Family members don’t know what caused his death.

He was a divorced father of seven children ranging in age from 5 to 17. His ex-wife and children lived nearby in Salt Lake City, Katie Mumford told The Oregonian/OregonLive.

He wasn’t ill with the coronavirus, and there were no signs of foul play, according to relatives. They’re awaiting the results of an autopsy. His father and mother both suffered serious ailments at a young age; his father had a heart attack around age 40, according to Katie Mumford.

Marcus Mumford represented Bundy when he was acquitted on all charges stemming from the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January 2016.

Mumford was tackled and stunned with a Taser by federal marshals moments after the acquittal. He had shouted at the judge, argued for Bundy’s release and demanded to see a detention order from Nevada following the October 2016 announcement of not guilty verdicts for Bundy and six co-defendants.

Mumford later agreed to voluntarily give up his standing to practice in federal court in Oregon, putting an end to U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman’s attempt to officially ban him in Oregon’s federal district.

Mosman pursued the sanction against Mumford, citing repeated instances of Mumford’s arguing with U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown during the refuge occupation trial, inappropriate commentary on a witness in the presence of a jury and failures or refusals to observe court rulings. Mumford previously told The Oregonian/OregonLive that Mosman was being “vindictive.”

At the time, another defense attorney in the refuge occupation trial praised Mumford. Defense lawyer Matthew Schindler, who was defendant Kenneth Medenbach’s standby lawyer during the trial, said Mumford represented Bundy zealously and successfully.

“What we need far more of in our legal community are Marcus Mumfords,” Schindler told The Oregonian/OregonLive then. “We have plenty of people who are polite. We need people who give everything they have to give.''

Inviting wrath of judge may be part of a calculated approach by Ammon Bundy's lawyer

Attorney Marcus Mumford told The Oregonian/OregonLive that he's striving to show a link between what he and Bundy perceive as the government's "misconduct'' in the shooting of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum with what they contend is the government's mishandling and mischaracterization of the refuge occupation.

Angie Bundy, wife of Ammon Bundy’s brother and co-defendant Ryan Bundy, wrote on Mumford’s Facebook page Monday:

"Marcus Mumford was fearless in defending Ammon and the other men in the trial in Portland. He also became a friend to the family and he will be greatly missed. He was the one who felt that the case could be won, and helped make it happen. Our hearts are broken, Rest in Peace.''

Mumford grew up on an Idaho dairy farm and told students at his alma mater, Utah State University, in 2010 that he had to be “audacious enough” to enter the field of law with a significant stuttering condition that he had struggled with since age 4 because “the world wasn’t prepared for a stuttering lawyer.”

Mumford went on to graduate from Brigham Young University’s law school. He clerked for a federal appellate judge and worked eight years for one of the country’s biggest law firms, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, before returning to Utah to open his own practice.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

WATERGATE Revisited - Roger Stone Updates 2-13-2020

"Operation Watergate ~ And we are back."

First, this happened...

Feds seek 7 to 9 years in prison for Trump ally Roger Stone

Then, this happened...

Trump congratulates Barr after prosecutors resign from Roger Stone case

Then, this happened...

Attorney who oversaw Roger Stone case resigns after Trump pulls nomination

Then, this happened...

Anti-Trump social media posts by Roger Stone jury forewoman fuel controversy in case

Yamiche Alcindor Reports On Roger Stone Wikileaks Conviction For Bearing False Witness To Congress

Yamiche Alcindor breaks all the hottest, exclusive news.

So they now convict Roger Stone of lying and want to jail him for many years to come. Well, what about Crooked Hillary, Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Shifty Schiff, Ohr & Nellie, Steele & all of the others, including even Mueller himself? Didn’t they lie?....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2019

Trump associate Roger Stone found guilty of lies that protected Trump

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 15: Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch acknowledges audience from members of the public in the audience as she concludes her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill November 15, 2019 in Washington, DC. In the second impeachment hearing held by the committee, House Democrats continue to build a case against U.S. President Donald Trump's efforts to link U.S. military aid for Ukraine to the nation's investigation of his political rivals.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Impeachment hearing ends with fireworks and applause

Trump doubles down on tweets attacking witness

Roger Stone, former adviser to President Donald Trump, holds a bible as he arrives at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, on November 15, 2019 in Washington, DC.

Trump associate Roger Stone found guilty on all counts

Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Nov. 15, 2019, during the second public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents. 

Yovanovitch: Trump's attacks are 'very intimidating'

(CNN)Longtime Trump political adviser Roger Stone was found guilty on Friday of lying to and obstructing Congress in a case that has shed new light on President Donald Trump's anticipation of the release of stolen Democratic emails in 2016 by WikiLeaks.

Stone, a political operative and Trump's friend, was found guilty of all seven counts brought by the Justice Department, a victory for special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Stone was found guilty of five counts of lying to Congress, one of witness tampering and one of obstructing a congressional committee proceeding. Among other things, he misled Congress about his communications with Trump campaign officials in 2016, the jury unanimously decided.

What Roger Stone's trial revealed about Trump and Mueller

The verdict out of Washington marks a stunning conclusion to one of the highest-profile prosecutions to emerge from the Mueller investigation -- a case that began with one of Trump's most vocal supporters arrested during a predawn raid as the special counsel's investigation wound down and since then has gradually revealed new information about the Trump campaign's positive reception to foreign interference in the 2016 US election.

Stone had no audible reaction as the courtroom deputy read the jury's verdict, but he slouched, standing, with a frown. His movements were slow and deliberate as he took a sip of water while each juror stated their position, confirming their unanimous decision, then hung behind in the corner of the courtroom, rarely speaking to others as attorneys and onlookers filed out.

His wife, too, simply looked straight ahead, though a friend of Stone's, Michael Caputo, turned his back to the jurors when all in the courtroom stood to watch them leave. As those in the courtroom dispersed, Stone kissed his wife on the cheek.

Thirty minutes after the jury delivered its verdict, Trump tweeted about his displeasure with it.

"So they now convict Roger Stone of lying and want to jail him for many years to come. Well, what about Crooked Hillary, Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Shifty Schiff, Ohr & Nellie, Steele & all of the others, including even Mueller himself? Didn't they lie?" the President wrote on Twitter, citing his political foes who either worked on or contributed information to the Russia investigation. "... A double standard like never seen before in the history of our Country?"

Prosecutors asked the judge to take Stone into custody immediately, but she declined. After considering that he may have communicated with right-wing commentator Alex Jones this week -- potentially violating a gag order on his case that prevents him from speaking about it -- Judge Amy Berman Jackson said she would keep a gag order on him as he awaits sentencing. He may return home to Florida, and his sentencing is set for February 6.

Stone potentially faces prison time, but his sentence will be entirely up to the judge. For the most serious of his crimes, witness tampering, he faces a maximum sentence of 20 years.

"He has been here for every court appearance. I have no reason to believe" he won't come to his next appearance, Jackson said Friday.

After leaving the courthouse and arriving where he's been staying in Washington, Stone told CNN, "No comment," when asked if he would seek a pardon from the President.

In recent months, Trump has weighed pardoning Stone if he was convicted, multiple people familiar with his thinking say.

Several of Stone's allies have lobbied the President to do so, but multiple people also have advised the President that doing so would be a terrible idea politically and have cautioned against it, people familiar with the situation have told CNN.

These discussions were happening while a conviction was still hypothetical. Now that a federal jury has convicted Stone, it's not clear where the President stands.

The charges

According to prosecutors, Stone lied during testimony and failed to turn over documents to Congress in 2017 showing he had sought to reach WikiLeaks the previous year. He lied about five facts, obscuring his attempt to use intermediaries to get information that could help then-candidate Trump in the election against Hillary Clinton.

WikiLeaks had released emails in July 2016 that the Russians had hacked from Democratic Party servers, and followed up with drops of emails stolen from the Clinton campaign's chairman in October 2016, continuing until Election Day.

Stone's trial at a federal courthouse in Washington revealed the extent to which the longtime Trump friend was directly in touch with Trump and other campaign officials about Wikileaks' 2016 release of hacked Democratic emails.

When the House had asked Stone in September 2017 if he had discussed WikiLeaks, its founder Julian Assange or the Democratic hack with the Trump campaign, Stone had denied it under oath , saying his legal team "found nothing" of those types of communications.

Prosecutors argued that witness testimony, along with Stone's texts, emails and phone records, showed Stone's interest in reaching WikiLeaks about the hacked documents it had and speaking to the Trump campaign and even Trump himself about it. Prosecutors said Stone had lied to Congress out of a desire to protect Trump.

"It would look really bad for his longtime associate Donald Trump" if the truth had come out, prosecutor Jonathan Kravis had said in his closing argument on Wednesday.

Stone's defense team countered that Stone didn't have a motive to protect Trump when he testified to the House in 2017, because Trump already had won the election and become President.

Witnesses in the trial included a cast of Trump-world characters like former White House strategist Steve Bannon and former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates, a key cooperator in Mueller's investigation. Both emphasized the campaign's interest in hacks and leaks dating back to April 2016.

During the trial, prosecutors revealed several phone calls between Trump and Stone, including a July 2016 conversation in which, Gates testified, Trump and Stone spoke about the planned release of hacked Democratic emails.

In his written answers to Mueller, Trump said he didn't recall his conversations with Stone, nor discussions about WikiLeaks and the Democratic hack.

Prosecutors argued that Stone's alleged failure to tell Congress about the attempts to reach WikiLeaks left the House Intelligence Committee with a blind spot in its investigation -- causing the committee's final report on Russian interference in the election to be inaccurate.

Stone threatening his once-friend Randy Credico, a comedian and radio host, compounded problems for the House, prosecutors argued.

Stone had told the House that he had an intermediary, whom he later identified as Credico, trying to reach Assange during the campaign. But prosecutors alleged another man had sought to get to Assange on behalf of Stone and the campaign, making Stone's claims about Credico false.

When Credico was called before Congress following Stone's testimony, Stone sent him emails and texts directing him to lie or to refrain from sharing the truth. Credico warned him that Stone may have perjured himself already, but Stone persisted, quoting over and over again lines from the film "The Godfather: Part II," referring to a character who is pressured by the Mafia family to lie to Congress.

Inside the courthouse

The trial got off a chaotic start on November 5 -- Stone missed some of the jury selection because he felt ill -- and brought out a memorable cast of characters both as witnesses and in the audience of the courtroom. At times, the proceedings drew laughs from the courtroom, with Credico even offering to do celebrity impressions in the witness box. But as the trial went on, the mood became more somber. By Friday morning, the second day of jury deliberations, Stone carried a Bible with him into the courthouse.

Stone's wife, Nydia Bertran Stone, was by his side throughout the trial, along with a cadre of supporters, including some who have identified themselves as part of the Proud Boys, a far-right group, and a man dressed in floor-length black-and-white robes who Stone described as his "spiritual adviser" and who led Stone's wife and others in prayer.

Prosecutors hit a stirring, philosophical note just before sending the case to the jury, making a broad appeal for the truth in the final words of their closing argument. Prosecutor Michael Marando had latched onto a phrase used in the defense's closing argument, "So what?"

"So what? ... Well, if that's the state of affairs that we're in, I'm pretty shocked. Truth matters. Truth still matters, OK?" Marando said to the jury.

"I know we live in a world nowadays with Twitter, tweets, social media, where you can find any view, any political view you want. ... However, in our institutions of self-governance, courts of law or committee hearings, where people under oath have to testify, truth still matters," he added, before asking for the jury to find Stone guilty.

The jury of nine women and three men, including a former congressional candidate and a federal government lawyer, deliberated over two days. During their almost nine hours discussing Stone's charges, the jury asked the judge questions that indicated a close reading of prosecutors' wording of the charges. At 11:11 a.m. Friday, the jury wrote to the judge: "WE HAVE REACHED A VERDICT."

Stone had been arrested last January in a predawn raid at his home in Florida by armed federal agents, caught exclusively on camera by CNN. That kicked off weeks of Stone's attempts to draw support, especially on social media. But he crossed a line by posting on Instagram a photo of the judge with crosshairs behind her head -- and Jackson then limited his ability to speak publicly about the case.

Jackson oversaw the weeklong trial in Washington's federal district court, cementing her status as one of the most significant arbiters over Mueller's work. She previously sentenced Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to a years-long prison term following his guilty plea in the Mueller investigation, and is set to sentence Gates on December 17.

Trump campaign and WikiLeaks

Gates' testimony in Stone's trial was an especially telling reminder of Mueller's finding that the Trump campaign had welcomed the release of hacked documents that could help them in the 2016 election.

Gates testified he had witnessed Trump take an evening phone call from Stone as they rode to New York's LaGuardia Airport from Trump Tower in late July 2016. Stone and Trump apparently discussed WikiLeaks' planned release of hacked Democratic emails.

"After Mr. Trump got off the phone with Mr. Stone, what did Mr. Trump say?" prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky asked Gates on Tuesday. "He indicated more information would be coming," Gates responded.

The call happened days after WikiLeaks' first release on July 22, 2016, of emails the Russian military had allegedly hacked from the Democratic National Committee.

Gates said WikiLeaks' announcement that it had pending information on then-presidential candidate Clinton was a "gift."

"It was in a way a gift that we had not sought," said Gates. "There were a number of us who felt it would give our campaign a leg up."

Bannon, another high-profile witness, testified that he and the Trump campaign viewed Stone as an "access point" to WikiLeaks.

Credico spent the longest time in the witness box during the trial.

He wasn't in court to hear the verdict but told CNN afterward that he was "stunned," "shell-shocked" and "not rejoicing."

"The whole thing is depressing. It started out as a fender bender that turned into a 21-car, tractor-trailer pileup," Credico said.

"It's a sad, man-made tragedy that could have been avoided."

 Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: November 8th, 2019 DNC PR Team Says They Were Only Joking About Bombing Trump

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

The Study Of Fake News: Another loss for Larry Klayman, esq. This time for Sheriff Joe Arpaio against the New York Times

Introducing Checkmatek2.net, the study of fake news.

Some call it propaganda.

I call it crap because it is all funded through child welfare fraud.

This is not a blog for "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

Grampa Corsi is supposed to come before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to explain his propaganda, fake news, crap.

Larry Klayman, the "Legal Genius" (trademark pending) is the brain behind the creation of Judicial Watch, another foreign propaganda, fake news, crap organization.

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:18-cv-02387-APM

L to R: “Dr.” Jerome Corsi (client) and Larry Klayman, esq.

https://checkmatek2.net/2019/08/14/another-loss-for-larry-klayman-esq-this-time-for-sheriff-joe-arpaio-against-the-new-york-times/

Do you see how that works?

U.S. House Judiciary Chairm... by on Scribd

U.S. House Judiciary Letter Attachment toJerome Corsi Document Request 3419 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Richard Nixon Resignation Announcement Speech Posted By The Nixon Library & Museum - A Federal Entity

This was posted August 8, 2019.

What I found most interesting was that the Nixon Library is not a private organization, like the Bush and Clinton Presidential Libraries, that stole from the National Archives, another children's trust of our nation's Treasury.

President Nixon spoke at 9:01 p.m. from the Oval Office at the White House. The address was broadcast live on nationwide radio and television.

Source information:
File ID: MVF-182
Collection: Main Video File

To request copies of this or other audiovisual materials or for more information about the library's holdings you may contact the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum:

Phone: 714-983-9120
Email: nixonreference@nara.gov
Website: nixonlibrary.gov

I thought this may be of assistance to Judiciary Jolly Jerry as he muddles his way to impeachment.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

WATERGATE 2.0: John Dean Of Watergate Fame & Detroit's Barbara McQuade Testifie To House Judiciary On Mueller Report

Recently, on Cocktailis & Popcorn:

Cocktails & Popcorn: Bill Barr Testifies On Mueller To Senate Judiciary - Nadler Still Hospitalized - Trump Wishes Him Well - Livefeed Cuts To Houston Police Chase

Then, this happened.

Comes now, John Dean, of Watergate fame.

John Dean is testifying as an original source, expert witness, on using congressional resources for a political campaign, through a process of ethics investigations.

Then, Detroit's own Barbara McQuade testifies but the some of the members took issues with this tweet.

Hey, Mueller, look over here. @Maddow has found the collusion. Follow the sanctions. If this whole cable news show thing doesn’t work out for you, Rachel, you have a real future in the FBI. https://t.co/fC1CbuKGB6

— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) December 1, 2018

Oh....this is absolutely delicious.......mmmmmmmm........... everyone signed a Truth in Testimony affidavit.

Her Flatulent Boviness, Sheila Jackson Lee, rambled something about the Saturday Night Massacre, so I am providing a link to it.

Louie brought up G. Gordon Liddy.

Louie is asking about the Watergate break in with John Dean.

Gaetz is desperately trying to knock down the veracity of the historic expertise.

Unfortunately, Gaetz is demonstrating how poorly his staff prepared him on the history of Watergate.

Ratcliffe rightfully complained that the Majority only delivered the testimony of the witnesses two hours before the hearing.

The Committee definitely needs to #sayhisname, or just subpoena.

Then, this happened.

Justice Department, Judiciary Democrats Reach Deal for Mueller Documents

Bass is asking about that "attorney client privilege" in the Clinton Impeachment, otherwise known as Whitewater Cover up about notes.

Witnesses

Mr. John Dean 
Former White House Counsel

• Dean Truth in Testimony 
• Dean Testimony 

Mr. John Malcolm 
Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

• Malcolm Truth in Testimony
• Malcolm Testimony 

Ms. Barbara McQuade 
Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan

• McQuade Truth in Testimony
• McQuade Bio
• McQuade Testimony 

Ms. Joyce White Vance 
Former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama

• Vance Truth in Testimony 
• Vance Bio
• Vance Testimony 

Documents

• Witness List

116th Congress

Then this happened.

Former U.S. Attorney Tells Congress Trump Committed ‘Multiple Crimes’

Barbara McQuade U.S. Judiciary Testimony - "Lessons from the Mueller Report" 06-10-2019 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

WATERGATE: Judiciary Subpoenas John Dean But Not John Conyers, Jr. - Sean Hannity Sucks

Watergate is back but the U.S. House Judiciary did not think this one out very well.

This may be a bit awkward but we are dealing with "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

If U.S. House Judiciary Committee calls John Dean, former White House Legal Counsel of Nixon, during Watergate, to testify so the members can "learn" on how to proceed in impeachment hearings, well, that would mean....dare I say it....

Fine, I will say it.

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee will have no choice but to subpoena the individual who constructed the impeachment hearing process.

They will have to #sayhisname so he can testify on what went on in Judiciary, behind the scenes, in Watergate, where Hillary Clinton worked for him.

Judiciary would most definitely have to call Hillary Clinton to testify so we can see how badly she bears false witness into the congressional record, again.

Or, if the Committee does not want to #sayhisname, I could always publish my own testimony into the record with lots of hyperlinks so the Members do not have to #sayhisname because I will be discussing CAPTA, which is what Watergate was covering up - the industry of trafficking tiny humans.

That would be fun.

I bet Roger Stone would be fun to be subpoenaed since he was right there, too.

Sean Hannity promulgates false claims into the public record, where all he had to do was to do a basic internet search.

Hannity sucks.

Please enter this into the record.

DEMOCRATS SEARCH FOR A 'PATH FORWARD' ON IMPEACHING TRUMP IN JOHN DEAN'S TESTIMONY

John Dean, Fisagate
John Dean, former White House counsel to President Nixon,
is sworn in during a hearing on the nomination of federal appeals
court judge Brett Kavanaugh to be an associate justice on the U.S.
 Supreme Court, in the Hart Senate Office Building on
September 7, 2018, in Washington, DC.

It might be 2019, but Democrats are looking to John Dean to be their guiding light.

The former Richard Nixon White House counsel will testify before the House Judiciary Committee next week as part of a series of hearings about the Mueller report, offering Democrats a prime opportunity to further publicly highlight what a growing number of members believe to be impeachable offenses committed by President Donald Trump.

Democrats are increasingly split on opening an impeachment inquiry into Trump, as more members across Capitol Hill defy leadership's wishes and join their dozens of colleagues in advocating for such a proceeding—and they hope Dean can help their position and messaging.

"It will be very, very helpful to us, as we think about the path forward," Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Judiciary Committee Democrat, told Newsweek. "What were the things that were relevant from Watergate? What were those tipping point moments? What do the American people need to know about what was in the Mueller report? This will help us to continue to get the information out in front of the people about what exactly has happened."

John Dean, Watergate

The divisive topic of impeachment continues to loom large over the Democratic Party — whether they like it or not — as they seek to force the Trump administration's hands in complying with their congressional probes into obstruction and abuse of power. Dean knows all too well about those topics, having pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for his involvement in the Watergate scandal in the 1970s that led to the unraveling of the Nixon administration. His cooperation with a special prosecutor and his testimony before Congress about key Watergate figures — including the president — helped to move lawmakers and the public on impeachment and push Nixon to resignation.

Now, decades later, Dean's testimony could sway Democrats and help to shift the public's perception on impeachment for a different president.

"We're still doing what we wanted to do in the very beginning: to make sure that the public has as much information as they possibly can, and that we continue to lay out a case to begin impeachment proceedings," Representative Val Demings, a Judiciary Committee Democrat, told Newsweek.

Democrats reiterated it was not their intent to hold such hearings for the sole purpose of persuading anyone's particular mind on impeachment, it's to "be sure that the American people understand the contents of the Mueller report," as Representative David Cicilline, a Judiciary Democrat, told Newsweek.

But the former special counsel's public remarks last week, in which he simply highlighted information already revealed in his 448-page report, acted as the tipping point for many House Democrats on calling for impeachment proceedings. They said that simply hearing from certain figures in public, such as Mueller and Dean, could act as a game changer to how they proceed and how the public wants them to proceed.

"It's a fluid situation that we're in," Representative Jamie Raskin, also a Democrat on Judiciary, told Newsweek, speaking on whether Dean's upcoming testimony could have the ability to move the needle on impeachment. "I think it's unfolding. Anything could change the direction we're going in."

Although he's referred to impeachment in the past, Representative Hank Johnson does not agree with some of his Democratic colleagues that now is the time for an impeachment inquiry. There's too little support for it in Congress, as well as with the American people, the Judiciary Committee Democrat told Newsweek, in order for him to call for the proceedings.

However, he, too, viewed the upcoming hearings with Dean and other prominent legal experts as a chance to shift the public's mind and, as a result, perhaps begin to change minds like his.

RELATED STORIES
House Democrats to Host Series of Hearings on Mueller Report
Democrats Want Mueller to Testify—Even if it Means Just Reading His Report
Mueller’s Report ‘Is More Damning Than All’ Others
"Most people are not going to read the Mueller report. But a lot more will be watching the proceedings on TV, and we can make up their minds in that way," Johnson said. "Most people are receptive to new information. The information has to be presented to them in a manner that is relatable."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Jerome "Grampa" Corsi & Larry Klayman Are Called To Tell Us Wikileaks & Foreign Propaganda

Grampa Corsi, one of the cyber-clowns who promenaded dark psyops to solicit, or e-beg, for funding, for which much of his funding may have came from foreign interests, as neither he, nor his attorney Larry Klayman are registered under FARA,  is being called to provide records on his communications with Trump, because he was talking to "Q is an idiot" and had the inside dilly-o on Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

Do you see how that works?

U.S. House Judiciary Chairm... by on Scribd

U.S. House Judiciary Letter Attachment toJerome Corsi Document Request 3419 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Roger Stone Reveals Nixon's Martini Recipe For U.S. Judiciary Impeachment Hearings

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Examines Special Counsel Under Watergate

902. 1996 AMENDMENTS TO 18 U.S.C. § 1001

The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 (FSAA), Pub. L. No. 104-292, H.R. 3166 (October 11, 1996), made several changes that affect the work of United States Attorneys' Offices, including revisions to 18 U.S.C. §§  1001, 1505, 6005, and 28 U.S.C. 1365. This section describes the changes to section 1001.

Section 2 of the FSAA revises section 1001 of title 18, United States Code. The new 18 U.S.C. § 1001, effective October 11, 1996, reads as follows:

1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully --
   1. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
   2. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
   3. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
2. Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
3. With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only in --
   1. administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
   2. any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

The new section 1001 contains several important features. First, section 2 of the FSAA restores the Department's ability to prosecute false statements made to the judicial and legislative branches. In 1995, the Supreme Court reversed long-settled precedent in Hubbard v. United States, 115 S.Ct. 1754 (1995), and held that a court is neither a "department" nor an "agency" under § 1001. Although the Court's opinion left open the possibility that a judicial or legislative entity might still be considered an "agency" under section 1001, several courts interpreted Hubbard broadly to mean that section 1001 applies only to false statements made to the executive branch. See, e.g., United States v. Dean, 55 F.3d 640 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1288 (1996); United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291, 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1995). As of March 1997, there was pending in the District of Columbia Circuit an interlocutory appeal concerning whether the old version of section 1001, even after Hubbard, still applies to financial disclosure statements that Members of Congress filed, pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act, with the Clerk of the House of Representatives before October 11, 1996. See United States v. Oakar, No. 96-3084 (D.C. Cir.). Prosecutors therefore should not concede, in any pleadings or arguments presented in federal courts, that the old section 1001 does not apply to such statements, at least until the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decides this case.

The new statute effectively overrules Hubbard, and expressly provides that section 1001 covers false statements that are made to all three branches of the federal government, without regard to whether the entity may be categorized as a "department" or "agency."

By including certain statutory terms (e.g., "jurisdiction" and "statement") from the former section 1001 without change, Congress intended that those terms, as reenacted, continue to carry with them the body of existing judicial constructions of those terms. For example, with respect to statements made within the jurisdiction of the executive branch, prosecutors should continue to consider all statements -- whether oral or written, and whether sworn or unsworn -- as being within the scope of the new section 1001. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 (July 16, 1996) at 8 ("Other than establishing materiality as an element of all three offenses, the Committee does not view the offenses defined in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) as changing already existing case law as it relates to the elements of the offenses.")(There was no Senate report concerning the Act, and the House report covers only the changes that the Act made to section 1001).

Section 2 of the FSAA, however, contains certain limitations concerning statements within the jurisdiction of the judicial and legislative branches. Subsection 2(b) of the FSAA provides that statements made to a judge or magistrate by parties or their counsel in a judicial proceeding will not be subject to prosecution under section 1001. Section 2 of the FSAA thus codifies a limited version of the "judicial function exception," which was created by the courts under the old section 1001 to avoid the chilling of advocacy that might occur if attorneys and parties were subject to prosecution for concealing facts from a court or jury. Under the codified version of the judicial function exception, parties or their counsel may be prosecuted for false submissions to other entities within the judicial branch, such as the probation office. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 at 9. Non-parties may be prosecuted for any false submission within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch.

In subsection (c) of amended § 1001, Congress created a "legislative function exception." Under the new provision, false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch are subject to prosecution only if they relate to administrative matters or congressional investigations conducted consistent with the applicable congressional rules. Amended §  1001 will thus reach those documents that have most often been the subject of congressional false statement prosecutions, such as vouchers, payroll documents, and Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) financial disclosure forms. The exception was intended to protect, among other things, the free flow of constituent submissions to Congress. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 at 4-5.

Amended § 1001 also expressly includes materiality as an element under each of the three clauses in subsection (a). This resolves a conflict among the courts on that issue. See, e.g., United States v. Corsino, 812 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Elkin, 731 F.2d 1005 (2d Cir. 1984).

U.S. v. Roger Stone - GOVER... by on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©