dChan
Anonymous ID: 0c6426 Aug. 18, 2020, 9:45 p.m. No.10338033   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8083 >>8165 >>8194 >>8459 >>8612 >>8671 >>8704

>>10337428 LB

>NOTABLE

missed

 

Special prosecutor determines ‘substantial abuses of discretion’ in Jussie Smollett case

 

Smollett said in 2019 that he was attacked by two white men near his home in Chicago. He was charge with filing a false report but those charges were dropped. A special prosecutor in Chicago has concluded his investigation into the handling of the hate-crime allegations by actor Jussie Smollett, determining there were a series of "operational failures" and several misleading and false statements made by Cook County State Attorney Kim Foxx following the actor's allegations. Special Prosecutor Dan Webb said Monday that he did not find evidence of undue influence exerted by third parties, but determine that Foxx and her team made a number of false or misleading statements to the media about her declared recusal from the case, her uncertainty that Smollett would be convicted, and her ongoing contact with Smollett's sister, actress Jurnee Smollett.

 

In January of 2019, Smollett told police that he had been attacked by two white men near his home in Chicago. The actor was then accused of staging the attack and charged with a 16-count indictment in March of 2019. Foxx's office tossed out the indictments weeks later, raising suspicions about the handling of the case. Following the decision to drop the charges against Smollett, Foxx's office used a list of nearly 6,000 cases to prove that the actor was treated no differently than any other case similar to his. Webb's report determined that providing the case list was an abuse of discretion and that despite Foxx's statements to the contrary, his case was not handled in the same way as others like it. Foxx initially said that the case was "treated like the other cases that have gone through our alternative prosecution model.” Webb determined that statement to be untrue, considering Smollett has a criminal history in California and "there were not thousands of (or, arguably any) similar cases that the Foxx's office resolved in a similar way to the initial case.

 

Mark Geragos, an attorney for Jussie Smollet, made a statement on Monday calling the report politically motivated and claiming that his client, "a black, gay man … maintains his innocence" and "continues to be used as a pawn." Geragos also claimed that Webb's report was "a blatant attempt to take down a black, progressive, female prosecutor who does not fit within the white power structure." Webb filed a new six-count indictment against Smollett in February, and was tasked with investigating any wrongdoing in the initial handling of the case. Webb now says he is seeking permission from a Cook County judge to release the 60-page evidentiary report that supports his findings. He also intends to send the report to the Illinois' Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, meaning Foxx and her colleagues could be penalized for their actions. Webb's report found that attorneys in Foxx's office were "surprised" and "shocked" by how the initial charges against Smollett were handled, and that those in charge of the case at the outset tell inconsistent stories about how decisions were made. A statement made on Foxx's behalf of Monday read, "This report puts to rest any implications of outside influence or criminal activity on the part of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (CCSAO) and the Chicago Police Department (CPD). As the report unequivocally confirms, State’s Attorney Foxx was not involved in the decision-making process regarding the Jussie Smollett case at any point and there was no outside influence on that process."

 

https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/special-prosecutor-determines-there-were-substantial-abuses-discretion-jussie#article

 

NOTABLE

Anonymous ID: 0c6426 Aug. 18, 2020, 9:55 p.m. No.10338120   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8194 >>8348 >>8459 >>8612 >>8671 >>8704

>>10338022, >>10338090

 

CNN panel shuts down guest asking how Bill Clinton hasn't been 'canceled'

 

A CNN panel was quick to defend former President Bill Clinton Tuesday night after a Republican commentator asked how he had not been "canceled" in the #MeToo era.

 

Ahead of Clinton's appearance on the second night of the Democratic National Convention, the former president was showered with praise by CNN commentators Van Jones and Jennifer Granholm. However, their colleague Scott Jennings, a former George W. Bush White House official, was puzzled that the Democrats continue to give Clinton a platform.

 

"I have to say… I am dumbfounded by this. How is it that Bill Clinton has not been canceled by the Democratic – how has he survived all of these waves of cancellations when he has been one of the biggest violators of these rules all these years?" Jennings asked.

 

"We believe in redemption, brother," Jones responded.

 

"We talk about the use of character to try and say 'Donald Trump is a man of lower character than Joe Biden' … he's fair game. That's totally fine," Jennings continued. "So you're gonna say that in one breath and then say, 'Character matters. Ladies and gentlemen, Bill Clinton!'

 

"I mean, does this make sense to anyone?" Jennings went on. "If you want Republicans to vote for Joe Biden, having Bill Clinton talk about character and not hav[ing] drama in the Oval Office- is that the right answer?"

 

BRIT HUME: #METOO MOVEMENT IS 'GOING TO BE SUSPENDED' SO CLINTON CAN SPEAK AT DNC

 

Granholm insisted Jennings' concerns were "answered decades ago" and touted Clinton's record as president.

 

Jones told Jennings that what he "admires" about Clinton is that he "acknowledged his wrongdoing" and "apologized," adding that apologies "don't come as easy" from the Trump White House.

 

"I don't think we have to say that everything that Bill Clinton has done is great, but I do think that when he has made mistakes, he's acknowledged them and I admire him for that," Jones said before anchor Anderson Cooper quickly changed the subject.

 

The legacy of Clinton's presidency was marred by his extramarital affair with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky, which started a chain of events that led to his impeachment.

 

The 42nd president has also been accused of sexual misconduct and assault and has been facing intense scruitiny in recent weeks over his ties to deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

 

Last month, Clinton was implicated in Epstein documents which revealed that one of Epstein's victims saw Clinton on the sexual predator's private island, which Clinton denies.

 

>https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-panel-shuts-down-guest-criticizing-clinton

 

NOTABLE

Anonymous ID: 0c6426 Aug. 18, 2020, 10:12 p.m. No.10338265   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8321

Trump: We Caught Biden & Obama Spying On My Campaign, Michelle Probably Knew Too…

 

President Trump: "We caught President Obama and Sleepy Joe spying on my campaign. That's treason. That's illegal These people should take 'em and do something with 'em… Obama knew about and I'm sure Michelle knew about it. And Biden knew about it."

 

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1295833888376401920

Anonymous ID: 0c6426 Aug. 18, 2020, 10:14 p.m. No.10338279   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8388 >>8418 >>8459 >>8612 >>8671 >>8704

Zero for Two: Trump Plan to Pardon Susan B. Anthony Gets Lukewarm Greeting on the Left // Do Assange Now. Do a Pardon per day until the end of the week. Assange, then Flynn, then Seth Rich, then Stone, then offer Snowden a fixed, reduced sentence of 5-10

 

Trump Plan to Pardon Susan B. Anthony Gets Lukewarm Greeting on the Left

 

President Donald Trump’s plan to posthumously pardon Susan B. Anthony for voting as a woman wasn’t taken well by Democrats and members of the liberal media, reports Fox News.

 

Trump on Tuesday at a White House event commemorating the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment signed a pardon for Anthony, who was arrested in 1872 for casting a ballot when women could not vote.

 

NowThis, a political news outlet with a strong liberal/progressive leaning bias, in a video posted to Twitter said Anthony’s tombstone doesn’t deserve “your ‘I Voted’ stickers.”

 

"They have perpetuated idealized versions of Anthony and her white colleagues such as Carrie Chapman Catt and Elizabeth Cady Stanton," NowThis producer Luria Freeman said in the videop. "Evidence of their ruthless racial bias has been pushed to the shadows, enabling the erasure of their women of color counterparts who also fought tirelessly for the right to vote."

 

The New York Times in a story about the pardon called Anthony an “increasingly divisive figure, adopted by anti-abortion forces and criticized for relegating Black suffragists to the sidelines.”

 

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., called the pardon “pathetic.”

 

"Trump pardons a woman who has been dead for over 100 years to show his commitment to women. Suburban women aren’t dumb. We are all insulted,” Speier said.

 

Former Clinton aide Jennifer Palmieri and New York Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul said the pardon wasn’t necessary.

 

"Susan B Anthony’s WHOLE point was to get arrested. She wanted that conviction,” Palmieri tweeted.

 

“I was deeply troubled to learn that Trump went ahead and treated her like a criminal,” Hochul tweeted. “Susan B. Anthony was guilty of nothing."

 

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump-anthony-pardon-voting/2020/08/18/id/982804/

Anonymous ID: 0c6426 Aug. 18, 2020, 10:17 p.m. No.10338308   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8330 >>8336 >>8459 >>8612 >>8671 >>8704

Check out the comments. Dems are pissed at AOC for what she said and at MSNDNC for the tweet

 

MSNBC

@MSNBC

In one of the shortest speeches of the DNC, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez did not endorse Joe Biden: "I hereby second the nomination of Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont for president of the United States of America."

AOC backs Sanders for president, ignores Biden in brief remarks

In one of the shortest speeches of the DNC, congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did not endorse Joe Biden for president Tuesday but instead his rival Bernie Sanders.

nbcnews.com

6:49 PM · Aug 18, 2020

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1295900790033350657

Anonymous ID: 0c6426 Aug. 18, 2020, 10:30 p.m. No.10338420   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8429 >>8459 >>8505 >>8612 >>8671 >>8704

>>10338376

 

SCOTUS Ruling Forces Soros Groups to Make Anti-Prostitution Pledge to Get U.S. AIDS Funding

 

In a blow to George Soros’ leftwing initiatives, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that foreign affiliates of his Open Society Foundations (OSF) are not protected by the Constitution and therefore must abide by a congressionally mandated anti-prostitution pledge to receive federal funding. Under a 2003 law called United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act the U.S. spends tens of billions of dollars to combat AIDS globally and a chunk of the cash flows into OSF coffers. Under the measure organizations that receive American taxpayer dollars to fight HIV/AIDS abroad must adopt policies opposing sex trafficking and prostitution. Leftist groups legally challenged the rule years ago, claiming that it violated their First Amendment right to free speech. In 2013 the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the policy requirement infringed on the American groups’ constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

 

The decision only applies to American organizations however, so an OSF affiliate called Alliance for Open Society International, which is handsomely funded by Uncle Sam, has engaged in litigation for more than a decade and a half to obtain the same exemption. The Soros group sued for permanent injunctive relief and a New York District Court ruled in its favor before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court recently reversed the appellate court decision, determining that foreign affiliates of U.S.-based groups that get federal dollars to combat HIV/AIDS abroad are not protected under the Constitution. “In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights,” according to the ruling, written for the majority by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Because the foreign Soros groups possess no First Amendment rights, applying the anti-prostitution policy requirement is not unconstitutional, the decision further points out, stating that under American constitutional law, foreign citizens outside U.S. territory do not possess rights under the Constitution.

 

Congress included the important policy in its landmark measure to combat HIV/AIDS globally because it determined that prostitution and sex trafficking are additional causes and factors in the spread of the deadly virus. Federal lawmakers also wrote in their legislation, which has helped save 17 million lives, that prostitution and sex trafficking are degrading to women and children. “No funds made available to carry out this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, may be used to provide assistance to any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking,” the law states. Leftist groups receiving federal funds assert that condemning prostitution and sex trafficking interferes with their efforts to help those with HIV/AIDS because it creates a stigma. The government’s anti-prostitution pledge “falsely casts sex workers as part of the problem rather than acknowledging their important role in developing and implementing successful HIV/AIDS-prevention strategies,” according to an OSF publication released years ago.

 

The recent Supreme Court ruling was a “blow to free speech and public health,” according to a statement issued by Soros’ OSF. It quotes OSF President Patrick Gaspard saying that “the Supreme Court upheld the U.S. government’s quest to impose its harmful ideological agenda on U.S. organizations and restrict their right to free speech.” He continues. “The Anti-Prostitution Pledge compromises the fight against HIV by impeding and stigmatizing efforts to deliver health services. Condemnation of marginalized groups is not a public health strategy.” The statement claims that research has repeatedly found that moral rejection and criminalization of sex work creates an environment where sex workers are more vulnerable to violence and abuse and consequently at greater risk of contracting HIV. “These issues are heightened in the context of COVID-19, when sex workers face financial devastation that further contributes to these disproportionate health and safety risks,” the OSF writes, circling back to blast the Supreme Court ruling because it “will prohibit critical organizations from providing services and support to sex workers who are too often left out of—or are antagonized by—government responses to the pandemic.”

 

>https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/scotus-ruling-forces-soros-groups-to-make-anti-prostitution-pledge-to-get-u-s-aids-funding/

 

>https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/scotus-ruling-forces-soros-groups-to-make-anti-prostitution-pledge-to-get-u-s-aids-funding/

 

NOTABLE