Defense lawyers call it “January 6 jurisprudence”—a unique set of rules and laws that only apply to those ensnared in the Justice Department`s unstoppable push to punish individuals who do not believe Joe Biden is the legitimately elected president of the United States.
Efforts to uncover election irregularities or lawfully object to the outcome are under criminal investigation resulting in the unprecedented weaponization of legal and judicial authority conducted by unaccountable prosecutors and judges.
She managed the grand jury proceedings for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and is currently overseeing the Justice Department`s latest iteration of its “Get Trump” campaign—a sweeping investigation into alleged attempts to “overturn” the 2020 election.
). FBI agents, acting at the direction of the rogue Washington Field Office, stole Perry`s cell phone on August 9, 2022, the day after the same office executed an armed raid at Mar-a-Lago.
Perry`s lawyers immediately attempted to keep the contents of the phone out of the hands of a leak-happy Justice Department, citing privacy and privilege factors, including the Constitution`s speech and debate clause, which basically protects the legislative branch from retaliatory actions by the executive branch.
When Perry initially refused to waive that protection at the request of the Justice Department, the government successfully sought a second warrant a few days later to review what investigators collected from the phone.
“After a determination that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal activity would be found on the targeted cell phone, the government`s search warrant was approved,” Howell wrote in one motion filed in the mostly sealed case.
A grand jury under her purview is “investigating potential federal criminal law violations stemming from efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election,” Howell wrote.
According to the government, Howell noted, Perry used his phone “to communicate with individuals allegedly engaged in those efforts over critical time periods at issue in the investigation.
” That`s just a sliver of the crazy talk in Howell`s 51-page motion rejecting most of Perry`s arguments about why roughly 2,200 emails and texts qualify for protection under the speech and debate clause.
Following a private review in October of the records that Perry sought to protect, Howell determined only a handful met the clause`s standards.
Perry believes the Clause shields all these responsive records from investigative review because they are part of his informal fact-finding efforts to understand election security issues in the 2020 election since the ECA process obligated Rep.
Why would the Justice Department need those communications for a criminal investigation?
) In a follow-up order filed on January 4, Howell raised “the public`s interest in an expedient investigation” as to why she would not halt her demand for Perry to turn over the records in question to the Justice Department.
And the very next day, the appellate court issued an emergency order to put Howell`s ruling on hold.
“`Why wouldn`t an individual member`s fact-finding be covered?` Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, asked a Justice Department lawyer.
In the meantime, investigators don`t have access to Perry`s cell phone records.
https://amgreatness.com/2023/02/27/a-partisan-judges-parting-rampage/
Comments
Post a Comment