If questioning the results of an election were a crime there would have been a round-up of Dems in 2016

 Washington Examiner:

Underlying the early morning June search of former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark's home was an investigation into obstruction of justice, criminal conspiracy, and false statements, according to court documents.

Special agents with the DOJ searched Clark's Virginia home and seized his phone on June 20 to collect evidence as part of an investigation into possible violations of three different laws, Clark revealed in a filing with the D.C. Bar’s Board on Professional Responsibility. It is not clear whether he was the target of the criminal inquiry.

BODYCAM FOOTAGE SHOWS AUTHORITIES EXECUTING RAID OF JEFFREY CLARK'S HOME

"Mr. Clark asserts that '[o]n June 20, 2022, approximately a dozen armed agents of the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General executed a criminal search warrant at [Mr. Clark’s] home at around 7 a.m. and seized his electronic devices,' in connection with an investigation into violations of '18 U.S.C. § 1001, which relates to false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which relates to conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C § 1512, which relates to obstruction of justice,'" the filing explained.

The filing pertained to a disciplinary case pending against Clark that was brought by the D.C. Bar’s board and first reported by CNN. The D.C. Bar’s disciplinary counsel issued an ethics complaint against Clark, saying he used his perch at the DOJ to boost election fraud claims.

News of the DOJ's raid of Clark's home sent tremors in conservative circles over the summer, but the reason for the raid was not clear at the time. Only some of the seized material from Clark was returned to him by Sept. 1, the outlet said. The department has been conducting an extensive review of the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and coinciding efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

So far, Clark has not been publicly charged with crimes in the inquiry, and the filing underscored that the raid "only means that the Department of Justice believed that Mr. Clark had evidence relating to the criminal investigation," not that he was "the target of a Grand Jury."

Clark, a prominent figure in the Jan. 6 committee hearings over the summer, had been eyed favorably by former President Donald Trump for the attorney general post in the twilight days of the administration, according to former Trump aides. Ultimately, Trump did not elevate Clark to attorney general before his departure from the White House.

Clark, who was assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division during the waning Trump White House days, trafficked in claims that election improprieties deprived Trump of victory in 2020. He prodded Jeffrey Rosen, who became acting attorney general after William Barr's resignation in December 2020, to send a letter to Georgia officials calling for a special session of the Georgia Legislature to address the election.
...

The Democrats have a problem when the shoe is on the other foot.  There is nothing wrong with raising questions about the validity of the vote.  It is called free speech.  If it were a problem there would have been a huge roundup of Democrats including Hillary Clinton. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more