FOX:
[…] This time, Paul’s reupping of his criminal referral comes after a new report added another chapter to the ongoing autopen saga, in which President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have accused Biden of shrugging off his authority to aides and top officials in the White House to authorize his signature on a slew of pardons and documents. more
vows are for weddings, do it & stfu
Yeah, sure, OK
Beginning to see why his neighbor punched him. Do-nothing gasbag like Gowdy.
is gowdy back on forensic files?
Tuco has the best advice for this situation.
https://youtu.be/jYGRIGwR7Uo?si=XO6w8h34hm0fc0Oe&t=43s
Fauci’s crimes are too numerous and to horrendous to be addressed by mere human justice.
So he needs to be sent before the Throne of God immediately to be properly disposed of.
A rope is a very traditional means to do so, but whatever rids this world of him would be the START of justice, not the end.
Hell can take over from there.
We merely need to arrange the transfer…
From the linked article:
“”Today I will reissue my criminal referral of Anthony Fauci to Trump DOJ,” Paul said on X.
It’s not the first time that Paul has issued a criminal referral against Fauci, who is the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and medical adviser to former President Joe Biden.”
If someone dies next week from a vaccine caused death, how can a old pardon cover a future death/murder?? Doesn’t sound right to me.
Where are the CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY charges?
You are expecting someone else to administer the justice you demand. Ain’t going to happen.
Another question……
How does an employee…..
of the federal government…..
get individual patents worth millions…..
while working for the federal……
government doing his federal job…..?
If ever a man deserved spending the rest of his life in prison it’s this sniveling, smirking little prick. Too bad he’ll live happily after killing millions of people.
If I remember correctly, Fauci’s “pardon” was one of the auto-penned ones, meaning that it’s worth jack and shit.
In the DOJ’s defense, prosecuting charges against former administrative and governmental officials is tricky and difficult. Crimes are creatures of statute – in this case federal statute – and there is no “common law” crime. For example, “crimes against humanity” is a charge stemming from the Nuremberg trials after WWII which was actually created for those trials, and I don’t know if the US has a statutorily similar criminal statute.
Much of the conduct of government officials falls in gray areas which must be sorted out. The DOJ must also consider governmental immunity; government officials frequently have immunity for many of the actions they have taken as well as Fifth Amendment rights. Then there are documentary issues; each document used in a prosecution must have a legal foundation, and particularly in cases with many documents authored by numerous individuals, laying a foundation can be complicated. Some documents may be privileged, which adds another layer of complexity particularly with emails. Some crimes require specific intent, which can be difficult to prove. The issue of massive use of the auto-pen for pardons is another issue which is basically uncharted waters. The rules of evidence, which the DOJ must abide by, are complicated and prosecutors are still sorting through the rules as applicable to electronic data.
But what about the J-6 defendants, you ask? Well, the majority of charges were relatively insignificant misdemeanors like trespass, and many of those charged pled to misdemeanors rather than continue to go through the legal process. Of those convicted of felonies, most (if not all) of those convictions are on appeal – and all of this was under Merrick Garland’s watch who was primarily interested in a political agenda rather than the rule of law. It is obvious to everyone except leftists and the media that the primary function of the J-6 charges, as well as the various prosecutions of Trump, was strictly political, and these prosecutions not only took years, but would be on-going if not for Trump’s pardons. Was bringing criminal charges for primarily political reasons a crime itself? I don’t know – I suspect not – see the brief discussion in the paragraph preceding this. How about leftist judges like Boasberg – is ignoring evidence from the bench a crime? Again, I suspect the answer is “no” and criminal conduct would be difficult to prove.
Those involved in these acts are, for the most part, sophisticated persons who know how to cover their tracks and operate in the gray areas – and know to lawyer up at an early stage. If you want a historical example of how difficult these prosecutions can be, look at Al Capone – everyone knew he was a violent crime lord who controlled Chicago’s illegal liquor business, but ultimately only convicted of tax evasion. Organized crime figures were almost impossible to prosecute until the passage of RICO, which itself is an extremely complicated statutory scheme. Even in the Nuremberg trials, the crimes were created and defined before those trials could commence.
We have had Attorneys General who, in my opinion, have used the Department of Justice for political purposes – Merrick Garland and Eric Holder are two who come to mind – and I have respect for AGs like Pam Bondi who try to respect the rule of law. Lawfare is not a particularly new concept, but it’s use against political figures for political advantage has become more commonplace in the past few years. As much as I would like to see some of these political scumbags punished, ignoring the rule of law is, in my opinion, a much more dangerous course of action.
Sorry for the rant, but what Bondi is trying to do is complicated and time consuming, and I wanted to try to illustrate that.
Wyatt: I enjoyed the rant and the explanations. Pretty smart and sensitive for a jerk.
Not being a lawyer, or even playing one on the internet, I don’t know about the legal details but it would seem to me that if he were summoned before Congress, he would have to go (or be tossed in jail like Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon) and then would have to choose between invoking the Fifth if he is worried about the legality of his pardon, or being forced to testify if he has accepted the pardon and supposedly cannot be prosecuted. That spectacle would put his claim on record and set the stage for any further action against him. As an added bonus, he would have a few sleepless nights and would have to spend some of his ill gotten gains on legal fees so, that little bit of karma would be a tiny bit of justice.
I am cynical enough to realize he and his creepy wife (who was in charge of determining whether his office was following ethical guidelines!) and their fortune will probably outlive the efforts to bring them to justice but I’d tune in to c-span to watch them squirm a little.
^^^^Contempt is one of those crimes (both federal and state) that are statutory and pretty well defined. Both Bannon and Navarro refused to submit documents or testify after being served with Congressional subpoenas. These were misdemeanors, and I think Bannon and Navarro were sentenced to 4 months in jail.