Federal Agents search Jeffrey Clark's home

[PoliticalChic]

Real America sees Trump for what he is: an enemy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and of our democratic institutions.

I posted this to you, and you ignored it, you Nazi.



The Constitution is known as ‘the law of the land.’

The U.S. Constitution calls itself the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.

The Constitution as Supreme Law

http://www.let.rug.nl › usa › outlines › government-1991




The fact is that the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.



Wherein we find this:
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

​

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

supreme.justia.com



But....this occurred: courts altered voting rules.
“In Pennsylvania, the question was whether the state’s Supreme Court could override voting rules set by the state legislature. In North Carolina, the question was whether state election officials had the power to alter such voting rules.”
NYTimes

Sooo.....no, the election was not correctly decided, and we don't actually know who won the election.





Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually not.

Trump is the head of the GOP and the Big Lie is alive and well – Texas Republicans are proof of that.

And 1/6 wasn’t an isolated incident – conservatives continue to propagate lies about ‘fraud’ and work to undermine the political process.

America’s democracy is under constant attack from the right.

The Constitution says the election was not determined correctly.....and you say the opposite.

Who to believe?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong.

The evidence is objective, documented, and compelling – Trump in fact sought to lawlessly overturn a fair, accurate, and Constitutional election reflecting the will of the people via a treasonous coup.

Trump was going to make an incompetent, unqualified partisan sycophant the AG who would pursue baseless claims of voter ‘fraud’ in an effort to cling to power.

Anyone who supports and defends Trump is just as lawless and treasonous.

"The evidence is objective, documented, and compelling – "


And here it is:


The Constitution is known as ‘the law of the land.’

The U.S. Constitution calls itself the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.

The Constitution as Supreme Law

http://www.let.rug.nl › usa › outlines › government-1991




The fact is that the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.



Wherein we find this:
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

​

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

supreme.justia.com



But....this occurred: courts altered voting rules.
“In Pennsylvania, the question was whether the state’s Supreme Court could override voting rules set by the state legislature. In North Carolina, the question was whether state election officials had the power to alter such voting rules.”
NYTimes

Sooo.....no, the election was not correctly decided, and we don't actually know who won the election.





Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law

 

[PoliticalChic]

You offer drivel. Cut n Paste walls of repetitive talking points (drivel) sourced from politically biased 'think tanks', and by 'think tanks', I mean the blogs of fellow magaturd idiots.

You will now proceed to prove me correct. Go.

Everything here is documented.

Not only has it been decided in the US Supreme Court that only the state legislature, and not any court, may alter or set the dates, but this played an important role in the 2000 Gore v Bush case.



“U.S. Supreme Court

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)



McPherson v. Blacker



Argued Oct. 11, 1892 Decided Oct. 17, 1892



“The validity of a state law providing for the appointment of electors of President and Vice President having been drawn in question before the highest tribunal of a state as repugnant to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that court having decided in favor of its validity, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rev.Stat. § 709. Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.



Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

McPherson v. Blacker

supreme.justia.com

The Supreme Court should require that no ballots received beyond the 5 o’clock deadline of election day be counted.





The Constitution is known as ‘the law of the land.’

The U.S. Constitution calls itself the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.

The Constitution as Supreme Law

http://www.let.rug.nl › usa › outlines › government-1991




The fact is that the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.



Wherein we find this:
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

​

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

supreme.justia.com



But....this occurred: courts altered voting rules.
“In Pennsylvania, the question was whether the state’s Supreme Court could override voting rules set by the state legislature. In North Carolina, the question was whether state election officials had the power to alter such voting rules.”
NYTimes

Sooo.....no, the election was not correctly decided, and we don't actually know who won the election.





Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law

 

[PoliticalChic]

Trump is a cancer. He lost the last election and that was before all of the BS stop the steal crap. Hell, he may be indicted when all of this is over. He would never win in 2024 and the Republicans would be insane to nominate him.

This:

Or This:

Which did you vote for?????

 

[mudwhistle]

Merrick Garland's DOJ Is A Threat To The Republic

Federal raids this week, along with an inappropriate statement about a SCOTUS ruling, underscore the weaponization of the DOJ under Garland.

thefederalist.com

John Daniel Davidson

"In the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday morning, more than a dozen federal investigators raided the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official with the Trump administration. Why? Because Clark had the temerity to investigate claims of voter fraud during the 2020 election.


That made Clark a target for the House Democrats’ Jan. 6 committee, whose Soviet-style show trial spent a good deal of time Wednesday implying that Clark, who once oversaw 1,400 lawyers and two divisions at DOJ, is traitor who tried to overturn the results of the election.



This should come as no surprise, since the entire raison d’être of the Jan. 6 committee is to smear anyone who questioned the outcome of the election or raised concerns about its unprecedented irregularities as a coup-plotter responsible for the Jan. 6 “insurrection.” In fact, Clark’s only crime is that in a sea of attorneys who didn’t want to lift a finger to investigate the election, he looked for options and fought to uncover the truth.


Of course, he’s not the only one the DOJ targeted this week. The same day Clark’s house was raided, FBI agents raided the home of Michael McDonald, Nevada’s top GOP official.


His crime, according to the Justice Department and the Jan. 6 committee, was signing a document with five other Nevada Republican Party electors after the 2020 election signaling their support for Trump. Among the signatories of the purely symbolic document was state GOP secretary James DeGraffenreid, whom FBI agents tried but failed to find on Wednesday.


These are just a few of the people against whom the Jan. 6 committee has unleashed Garland’s Justice Department. So far, the committee has subpoenaed more than 100 lawmakers, local officials like McDonald and DeGraffenreid, internet and communications companies, Trump White House officials, and others. Make no mistake: the committee is using the DOJ as a weapon against its political enemies, and Garland is allowing it to happen.



We should have seen this coming. From the outset of his tenure, Garland has betrayed a willingness to use the DOJ as a partisan weapon. There was the raid on Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe’s home last November, and preceding that months of illegal spying on his organization.


Even worse, in some ways, was the unprecedented memo in October designed to threaten and silence parents whose only “crime” was to speak out about the teaching of critical race theory in schools. Garland smeared them as “domestic terrorists” and directed the Department of Justice and the FBI to “launch a series of additional efforts in the coming days designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.”


But this “rise in criminal conduct” was pure fiction. Garland got it from a letter sent to President Joe Biden by the National School Boards Association, which made vague and unsubstantiated claims about “threats and acts of violence” against school board members from parents opposed to critical race theory. Less than a week after the letter was sent, Garland’s memo appeared. It was a transparent ploy to get the federal government to intimidate parents into silence and suppress their First Amendment rights, which Garland was happy to do.


At every turn, Garland has shown himself hostile to the Bill of Rights and to law-abiding Americans who exercise those rights, and beholden to Democrat partisans and left-wing advocacy groups. He has brazenly allowed political influence to direct the Justice Department’s considerable powers.


If you think Garland’s DOJ isn’t a threat to the republic, then you need to start paying attention, because the weaponization of federal law enforcement under Biden and Garland is almost certainly going to get much worse."

 

[mudwhistle]

Real America sees Trump for what he is: an enemy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and of our democratic institutions.

Trump believes in following the Constitution.
Democrats believe in going around the law of the land at every opportunity.
They cannot allow any law to stand in their way of pushing us into an authoritarian state.

 

[Delldude]

They don't have the power to indict because this is not a legal trial. The defendant is not there, the defendant's lawyer is not there, discovery is not allowed, and witnesses are cherry picked by Miss Piggy (the prosecution).

DOJ can.....they need Trump as a distraction to all their failings.His odds of any conviction are slim to none, but they could make another TV spectacular of it for months.

 

[bodecea]

I don't think we tried hard enough. If we keep putting party over country, we will continue getting people like John Cornyn and Liz Cheney.

"Party over country"?....when you are all about trump over everything.

 

[Delldude]

Merrick Garland's DOJ Is A Threat To The Republic

Federal raids this week, along with an inappropriate statement about a SCOTUS ruling, underscore the weaponization of the DOJ under Garland.

thefederalist.com

John Daniel Davidson

"In the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday morning, more than a dozen federal investigators raided the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official with the Trump administration. Why? Because Clark had the temerity to investigate claims of voter fraud during the 2020 election.


That made Clark a target for the House Democrats’ Jan. 6 committee, whose Soviet-style show trial spent a good deal of time Wednesday implying that Clark, who once oversaw 1,400 lawyers and two divisions at DOJ, is traitor who tried to overturn the results of the election.



This should come as no surprise, since the entire raison d’être of the Jan. 6 committee is to smear anyone who questioned the outcome of the election or raised concerns about its unprecedented irregularities as a coup-plotter responsible for the Jan. 6 “insurrection.” In fact, Clark’s only crime is that in a sea of attorneys who didn’t want to lift a finger to investigate the election, he looked for options and fought to uncover the truth.


Of course, he’s not the only one the DOJ targeted this week. The same day Clark’s house was raided, FBI agents raided the home of Michael McDonald, Nevada’s top GOP official.


His crime, according to the Justice Department and the Jan. 6 committee, was signing a document with five other Nevada Republican Party electors after the 2020 election signaling their support for Trump. Among the signatories of the purely symbolic document was state GOP secretary James DeGraffenreid, whom FBI agents tried but failed to find on Wednesday.


These are just a few of the people against whom the Jan. 6 committee has unleashed Garland’s Justice Department. So far, the committee has subpoenaed more than 100 lawmakers, local officials like McDonald and DeGraffenreid, internet and communications companies, Trump White House officials, and others. Make no mistake: the committee is using the DOJ as a weapon against its political enemies, and Garland is allowing it to happen.



We should have seen this coming. From the outset of his tenure, Garland has betrayed a willingness to use the DOJ as a partisan weapon. There was the raid on Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe’s home last November, and preceding that months of illegal spying on his organization.


Even worse, in some ways, was the unprecedented memo in October designed to threaten and silence parents whose only “crime” was to speak out about the teaching of critical race theory in schools. Garland smeared them as “domestic terrorists” and directed the Department of Justice and the FBI to “launch a series of additional efforts in the coming days designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.”


But this “rise in criminal conduct” was pure fiction. Garland got it from a letter sent to President Joe Biden by the National School Boards Association, which made vague and unsubstantiated claims about “threats and acts of violence” against school board members from parents opposed to critical race theory. Less than a week after the letter was sent, Garland’s memo appeared. It was a transparent ploy to get the federal government to intimidate parents into silence and suppress their First Amendment rights, which Garland was happy to do.


At every turn, Garland has shown himself hostile to the Bill of Rights and to law-abiding Americans who exercise those rights, and beholden to Democrat partisans and left-wing advocacy groups. He has brazenly allowed political influence to direct the Justice Department’s considerable powers.


If you think Garland’s DOJ isn’t a threat to the republic, then you need to start paying attention, because the weaponization of federal law enforcement under Biden and Garland is almost certainly going to get much worse."

The ghosts of Loretta Lynch and Comey still haunt the halls of justice.

 

[bodecea]

Trump believes in following the Constitution.
Democrats believe in going around the law of the land at every opportunity.
They cannot allow any law to stand in their way of pushing us into an authoritarian state.

"Trump believes in following the Constitution"...

 

[JimH52]

So, are you claiming the attorneys (whose names you don't know) who went before the judge (whose name you don't know) just , what, had a good laugh with the judge and shaked with the judge on ransacking Clark's house for headlines?

Just a few winks, maybe? All of them -- attorneys and judges alike, whose names you don't even know -- corrupt to the bone?

Yes or no.

Think of the absurdity of what you are suggesting. Seriously. Think on it.

Clark is an Imbecile. All the other trump appointed attorneys said he was incompetent.. He was the perfect person to help trump in his coup attempt.

 

[JimH52]

"Party over country"?....when you are all about trump over everything.

But trump is not about party. He could care less for the country or party. He is about trump.

 

[mudwhistle]

Clark is an Imbecile. All the other trump appointed attorneys said he was incompetent.. He was the perfect person to help trump in his coup attempt.

Yeah. And that's your opinion.

 

[mudwhistle]

But trump is not about party. He could care less for the country or party. He is about trump.

It's amazing the amount of irony in that statement.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Trump believes in following the Constitution"...

I just provided proof that the election was not decided correctly.....as you requested.

Yet....you ignored it.


Must mean that even in your Democrat miasmic haze,.....you know the truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The ghosts of Loretta Lynch and Comey still haunt the halls of justice.

Anything the Left touches turns to.........

 

[Meister]

Who is Jeffery Clark?
Is JC qualified for the position trump gave him?

Funny that.....I wonder that about Biden's entire administration.

 

[B. Kidd]

The FBI didn’t just show up on their own. They had a warrant signed by a federal judge. Which requires evidence that shows probable cause.

And that was okayed by the Attorney General, Merrick Garland.

You turds need to come to grips with the fact that Donny the Orange is under criminal investigation.

By a one-sided Banana Republic!
Is there any other kind?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nice deflection or watered down targeted cheery picked answer,

I literally described how search warrants are acquired.

You are so far detached from reality, that you think that was deflection or cherry picking.

Attorneys convinced a judge that they would likely find evidence of a crime at his house.

You reject that simple reality and substitute a cultist fantasy.

Sad and embarrassing for you.