Illinois Primary Election Process | VOTE411Quote:
Illinois is a “partially open” primary state. This allows voters to cross party lines, however, they must first publicly declare their ballot choice.
|
Illinois Primary Election Process | VOTE411Quote:
Illinois is a “partially open” primary state. This allows voters to cross party lines, however, they must first publicly declare their ballot choice.
I've lived here since 1963, I have lived in several different counties. I have NEVER been asked this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
More voter irregularities in Illinois. Anyone here surprised?
I am just going by what the rules of the State say.
Ballotpedia has the same regulations cited
Primary elections in Illinois - BallotpediaQuote:
In Illinois, a voter states his or her affiliation with a political party at the polling place in order to vote in that party's primary.
Not irregularities. It's none of their beeswax. And the county people know it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It's a good system . The graveyard residents don't have to register
It's none of their beeswax. And the county people know it isn't.
It's the Daley machine way
Key Largo - Johnny Rocco runs it down (youtube.com)
No,the nasty workers at the voting booths or who open the mail-in ballots can toss the ballots that don't vote for Trump.
In Chi town ? The town of "vote early vote often" ? As long as states foolishly allow drop boxes there is always the potential for ballot stuffing fraud .
Drop boxes will not be available. And Illinois is a lot bigger than Chicago.
Mail Ballot Drop Box Locations | Cook County Clerk (cookcountyclerkil.gov)
Gov. Pritzker Signs Legislation Strengthening Voting Access for Most Vulnerable Residents (illinois.gov)Quote:
Drop Boxes
This legislation permits election officials to install drop box sites where voters can submit mail-in ballots without postage. Election officials must collect and process all ballots at the close of each business day, and voters can return vote by mail ballots at any collection site through the close of polls on Election Day. Ensuring voter safety is paramount, and all collection sites must be secured by locks and only opened by election authority personnel. To further bolster security, the State Board of Elections can establish additional guidelines for the collection sites.
Curbside Voting
The legislation permits local election authorities to establish curbside voting for individuals to cast a ballot during early voting or on Election Day. Curbside voting allows certain voters to complete their ballot from their vehicle in a designated zone outside of the polling place. Prior to the new law, this option was only available to voters with a temporary or permanent disability, who may face difficulties entering the polling place. In this instance, the voter may request that two election judges—at least one from the Democratic Party and one from the Republican party—deliver a ballot to the voter at each vehicle where curbside voting is taking place.
The real goal (besides getting Trump which is obvious)
If the Dems win their lawfare campaign they deny the people the right to elect leaders outside the swamp or any candidate they don't like for that matter.
If the Dems lose (like they already did with the attempts to keep Trump from the ballot ) then they rail against SCOTUS and set the stage for them to pack SCOTUS ;effectively turning it into an appointed for life legislative body.
This was the goal when FDR threatened to pack the court after the Court swiftly ruled much of his New Deal proposals were unconstitutional. His gambit was defeated ;but it was mission accomplished. SCOTUS was duly intimidated .Other legislation and abuses of power that he and the Dems proposed became law.
I don't think it will come to that. I think SCOTUS will give Trump a big rejection in his attempt to claim he had "absolute immunity" . The question will be how much immunity does SCOTUS find to be constitutional ?
Contrast that to the hands off treatment Quid got from (Republican) prosecutor Robert Hur. Quid is left to be judged in the court of public opinion called the elections . That is where Trump's cases belong.
Trump filed a brief with SCOTUS Tuesday regarding his claim of Presidential Immunity.
2024-03-19 - US v. Trump - No. 23-939 - Brief of Petitioner - Final with Tables (002).pdf (supremecourt.gov)Quote:
“a denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents.”
That seems to be a compelling argument as the warfare against Trump demonstrates.
All of Jack Smith's prosecutions of Trump depend on how SCOTUS rules on this issue. The oral arguments are set for April 25 . SCOTUS should rule no later than the end of June when the current session concludes.
Another case affecting Trump but directly affecting those charged for the Jan 6 riot will also be heard.
DOJ slapped them with 1512(c)(2), obstruction of an official proceeding. charges
Fischer v. United States - SCOTUSblog
330 protesters have been charged ;and about half of Smith's charges against Trump are related .
Judge Beryl Howell (who has sentenced some of the rioters to harsh sentences ) warned prosecutors in December that the cases will backlog the system and suggested that plea deals should be made with the 327 defendants charged .
Quote:
Howell said from the bench Friday she has heard from fellow judges in Washington's federal district court that they have already come across requests from Jan. 6 defendants who are either charged with or have pleaded guilty to the obstruction charge and are now asking to pause proceedings until the Supreme Court determines whether the statute can be applied to Jan. 6-related conduct.
Howell said that such requests are not "unreasonable" and suggested a federal prosecutor narrow a plea offer involving the 1512 count to focus on another charge to avoid delaying the case. Howell indicated the judges in the court could encounter backlogs in scheduling because of the high court's review.
Federal judge warns of Jan. 6 case backlog as Supreme Court weighs key obstruction statute - CBS News
Some have been released . Most have been delayed awaiting a SCOTUS ruling.
18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) This is that law that is being used against roughly 350 Jan 6 folks taking selfies in the Capitol . It is also the key statute in Jack Smiths Jan 6 case against Trump.
18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)Quote:
(c)Whoever corruptly—(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
This is a post Enron law to prevent witness tampering and evidence destruction. It had nothing to do with obstructing Congress from doing an official act.
That is why SCOTUS is hearing oral arguments in the Fisher case challenging the constitutionality of the charges. They are political protesters ;not corporate fraudsters .
It is the ONLY charge against 55 cases .For many others ,counts commonly include nonviolent misdemeanors such as parading in the Capitol or disorderly conduct.
Some like Fisher have violence charges against them . But this particular law has a max sentence of 20 years ;and sentences are already harsh
And more is coming . The Solicitor General arguing the case for Quid ;Elizabeth Prelogar; wants to pile on with Jan 6 being a “uniquely horrifying event” causing “a significant disruption of a governmental function,”
Prelogar is a former clerk for AG Garland and Associate Justice Elena Kagan . She basically admitted in arguments that 18 U.S.C. 1512 is being unevenly applied to Jan 6 defendants and is not being used in other protesters who engage in similar conduct (ie the violence during the George Floyd protests or the Antifa insurrection .
Her testimony has been at best misleading
���� on X: "The offer the DOJ sent me in August 2021, was a take it or leave it deal to plead guilty to 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) with a range of 41 to 51 months. I refused. Yesterday the Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that non-violent J6ers without priors only face 24 to 26 months for https://t.co/I1FbCvnveJ" / X (twitter.com)
A good summary is found in SCOTUSblog
Justices divided over Jan. 6 participant’s call to throw out obstruction charge - SCOTUSblog
Reading SCOTUSblog take on written arguments filed by Trump and Jack Smith prior to oral arguments about Presidential immunity . Oral arguments are today.
Smith appears to believe that no President has immunity because the rule of law is the
'safeguard" . His take is roll on the floor laughable if you know how Trump has been treated by the DOJ.
"The Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, holding that presidents are immune from civil lawsuits by private parties seeking damages, does not shield former presidents from federal criminal liability, Smith argues. There is a “far weightier interest in vindicating federal criminal law” in a case brought by the executive branch than a civil case brought by a private party, Smith contends. And while the justices in Fitzgerald were worried about the prospect that a flood of private civil suits would affect the president’s decision making, Smith observes that there are a variety of safeguards – ranging from grand juries to the burden of proof at trial and due process protections – to ensure that “prosecutions will be screened under rigorous standards and that no President need be chilled in fulfilling his responsibilities by the understanding that he is subject to prosecution if he commits federal crimes.”
Supreme Court to hear Trump’s bid for criminal immunity - SCOTUSblog
Smith needs to be hired by Babylon Bee. He is a fabulous comedy writer .
So the question comes down to ;do you want a President who is too afraid to make decisions because of potential indictments once out of power ?
Trump's lawyer D. John Saur argued .......
"If a president can be charged, put on trial, and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president's decision making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed,"
Michael Dreeben for the DOJ said
"Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution," "The Framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain."
23-939_l5gm.pdf (supremecourt.gov)
Saur did not dispute that Trump could be prosecuted for private acts ;or even public acts AFTER an impeachment conviction .
A fair reading of the Constitution makes that clear
Quote:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Article Sec 3 Clause 7
Dreeben conceded that there were some acts a President has immunity for.
It's a tough call and I think SCOTUS will do a Solomonic decision conceding some points while not granting absolute immunity . One of the checks on Presidential power is their liability . Nixon wasn't impeached but still it took a pardon to ultimately clear him.
In Trump's case the question is can a former President be legally harassed by the deep state for acts he took public and private ;before ;during ;and after his term for the audacity of running a campaign ,and winning without their approval.
My reading of this makes me believe that SCOTUS Will take all the time they need before punting this back to the Circus Court with instructions to limit their ruling. What that means is that the Dems' plan to get the Jan 6 case concluded with a rubber stamp conviction before the election likely will not happen.
Further it is clear from the oral arguments that the use of code 18 U.S.C. 1512 applies ONLY to Trump and Trump supporters . First it was argued that immunity applied only to Presidential functions like pardons; appointments; vetoes, and recognition of foreign governments . Then Gorsuch asked if another President could be charged for leading a protest in front of Congress ;and the answer was "probably not"
23-939 (supremecourt.gov)Quote:
Gorsuch: Let me just back up, though, just a second to what was a quick exchange with Justice [Bret Kavanaugh] that I just want to make sure I understand. Did you agree that there are some core functions of the executive that, president conduct, that Congress cannot criminalize?
Dreeben: Yes.
Gorsuch: So, is that a form– I mean, we can call it immunity or you can call it “they can’t do it,” but what’s the difference?
Dreeben: We call it an “as applied Article 2 challenge” that–
Gorsuch: Okay. Okay. Can we call it immunity just for shorthand’s sake? So I think we are kind of narrowing the ground of dispute here. It seems to me there is some, some area you, you concede that, in official acts, that Congress cannot criminalize. And now we’re just talking about the scope.
Dreeben: Well, I don’t think I said “just,” but I think it’s a very significant gap between any official act and the small core of exclusive official acts.
Gorsuch: I got that, but I want to explore that, okay? So, for example, let’s say a president leads a mostly peaceful protest sit-in in front of Congress because he objects to a piece of legislation that’s going through. And it, in fact, delays the proceedings in Congress. Now under 1512 C 2. That might be corruptly impeding an official proceeding. Is that core and therefore immunized or whatever word euphemism you want to use for that. Or is that not core and therefore prosecutable?
Dreeben: Well–
Gorsuch: Without a clear statement that applies to the president.
Dreeben: It’s not, it’s not core. The core kinds of activities that the court has acknowledged are the things that I would run through the Youngstown analysis, and it’s a pretty small set. But things like the pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power to veto legislation, the power to make appointments, these are things that the Constitution specifically allocates to the president. Once you get out–
Gorsuch: So a president then could be prosecuted for the conduct I described after he leaves office?
Dreeben: Probably not. But I want to explain the framework of why I don’t think that that would be prosecution that would be valid.
The charge against Trump and the Jan 6 rioters is that they disrupted a Congressional proceeding . But from this admission ; it only applies to Trump.
In the document case ,Judge Cannon will allow Trump to file a petition to dismiss based on selective prosecution. That would be the way they went after Trump while giving Quid Pro Joe a pass (Trump has a greater case of possession of classified docs because he was President while most of the docs Quid possessed were obtained while he was a Senator. ) The motion had been sealed pending her review . But now it appears she will go forward with it.
During oral arguments Cannon did not appear to buy the prosecutions argument that the 2 cases are different .
BREAKING: Judge Aileen Cannon Considers Dismissing Trump's Classified Documents Case Amidst Selective Prosecution Concerns - Texas Border Business
(hard to find this in the compliant press . They focus more on her refusal to accept Trump's immunity claim)
Cannon wants Trump to be able to attend the proceedings . So as long as the hush money show trial is happening ; she will not schedule this case. Again ; this will likely push any trial until after the election.
It is the million dollar question.Quote:
During a hearing in a Florida court, the judge extensively questioned the team led by Jack Smith, the prosecutor handling the case, on why Donald Trump was the only former president or vice president in the United States to be charged under the Espionage Act for retaining or taking classified documents. This inquiry came in the wake of revelations involving 32 counts against Trump, marking a significant challenge to the prosecution’s efforts to hold him accountable for alleged mishandling of sensitive information.
So Biden not only retained classified docs, but shared them with a writer whose obvious intent was to publish them in book form, and yet he was not prosecuted? Golly. I wonder why not?Quote:
former Special Counsel Robert Hur’s confirmation that President Joe Biden had also breached laws related to the retention of classified documents. Hur highlighted that Biden had willfully retained classified materials and shared them with a ghostwriter for a book project, from which he reportedly earned at least $8 million. These revelations have fueled debates over the consistency of legal standards applied to high-ranking officials, with Trump’s legal team arguing that their client is being unfairly targeted.
The un-redaction of docs ordered by Judge Cannon could destroy Smith's doc case against Trump.
They prove that despite Quid's denials ;the WH ;DOJ ,and the Archives coordinated closely in a get Trump effort. DOJ has made claims that they only got involved after the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA ....at the time headed by emperor appointed David Ferriero ) sent in criminal referrals in February 2022 . But the docs show close collaboration in 2021 .
Deputy White House Counsel Jonathan Su regularly communicated with Archive officials in that time.
Quid told '60 Minutes' that the WH was not involved .
Biden says Trump handling of documents 'totally irresponsible' | ReutersQuote:
"I have not asked for the specifics of those documents because I don't want to get myself in the middle of whether or not the Justice Department should move or not move on certain actions they can take," Biden said. "I agreed I would not tell them what to do and not, in fact, engage in telling them how to prosecute or not."
Trump's defense team compiled the records but they had been heavily redacted . Smith fought to keep them that way. Now we know why.
SCOTUS said today that 1512(c)(2) was not an appropriate felony charge against the Jan 6 rioters because it only applies to evidence tampering . Many of the rioter will have the most serious charges against them reversed . Trump is also charged with violating the statute in his DC Jan 6 case.
For one person the decision comes too late. Matthew Lawrence Perna died on February 25, 2022 from suicide.
He entered the Capitol on Jan 6 through a door that had been opened .He hung out there for 5-10 minutes taking pictures within a roped in area.
Pictures of him at the Capitol ended up on his Fakebook page. The Feds asked for the public’s help to identify rioters . A person familiar with Perna recognized him and flagged him to police.
When notified that the police were looking for him he surrendered to them . He plead guilty to all their charges.
Then he found out that the Feds were looking to tack on additional charges .He became despondent. .
His obit said
“The constant delays in hearings, and postponements dragged out for over a year. Because of this, Matt’s heart broke and his spirit died,”
Jan. 6 Capitol rioter dies by suicide because of 'broken heart' over case (nypost.com)
Supreme Court Overturns DOJ's Use of Key J6 Felony Court (declassified.live)Quote:
“When Matthew was unexpectedly charged with the felony of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding—after initially facing only misdemeanors—his world collapsed. The weight of a potential lengthy prison sentence bore down on him, filling his days with insurmountable worry and anxiety. At that time, there was no glimmer of hope that this severe charge would be dropped.
People should be held responsible for this madness.
Just heard driving home from my hike that SCOTUS ruled Presidents have ABSOLUTE immunity for OFFICIAL ACTS . This should delay or put a fork in the DC trials and the doc case . I need to read the opinion to see if they clarify what is considered an 'official act '. I believe that none of these cases will be resolved before the election
Surely Official Acts are those conducted while in the elected role\office and not after the fact.
So rules out some, but not all of the current actions...
Either way typical murky SCOTUS ruling.
Correct they punted
Trump was in office until January 20 2021 . The events of Jan 6 happened when he was in office.
I just read the decision .
23-939_e2pg.pdf (supremecourt.gov)Quote:
It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
What SCOTUS said was a President has absolute immunity when doing core acts and presumptive immunity when doing official acts . SCOTUS did not decide the case against Trump. They went point by point in the indictment against him and instructed the lower courts to evaluate the extent of his immunity based on their guidelines.
What will happen now is that the courts that denied his appeals before will evaluate and deny his appeals again . This just brought Trump and SCOTUS time. Eventually SCOTUS will have to decide the merit of each indictment .
Trump wins because the delay will push the cases against him beyond the election. If he wins he fires the prosecutor and has an Attorney General who dismisses the cases .
I honestly don't know when official acts begin and acts by a President are subject to criminal prosecution . It is a very murky slippery slope.
As an example ;the emperor ordering the killing of American citizen; Anwar al-Awlaki,( a cleric born in New Mexico making him a birthright American ;but an al Qaeda leader in the Arabian peninsula ) with a drone .
The emperor wacked an enemy of the country . But al-Awlaki was not given due process entitled to every American citizen. Legal scholars have been debating whether the emperor was acting within his powers or was he guilty of murder ?
He was not given his day in court as was his co-conspirator Rajib Karim given in the Brit courts.
So did the emperor exceed his powers as his official duty as Commander in Chief of the Armed forces ? What is clear was that it was far easier to drone his a$$ than to go though the ponderous judicial process.
Let the government prove that Trump was NOT acting in his official capacity . That shouldn't be hard right ?
As a sidebar and perhaps more interesting is that Justice Clarance Thomas in a separate concurring opinion opened up the possibility that prosecutor Jack Smith's appointment violated the Constitution.
Quote:
"Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law,"
Trump has made that contention especially in the Florida document case.Quote:
By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President – he cannot create offices at his pleasure,"
Roberts in his opinion gave instructions to the lower courts they could NOT consider the President's motives but only to decide if his acts were official Presidential acts .
For the record Trump's motives are clear . He thought he was defrauded . He tried to get AG Barr to investigate election fraud and Barr refused.
He tried to get states officials to investigate fraud and change electoral votes he thought were fraudulent . He tried to convince VP Pence that his duty was more than just a ceremonial rubber stamp of fraudulent election results ;that Pence should delay until the concerns were addressed. Finally he called on his supporters to go to Capitol Hill to protest the certification. That turned violent.
Trump contends that all his acts were official acts .
Meanwhile Justice Sotomayor's dissent is a meltdown. She got right to the Dem talking point . Again ;all the court did was refer the case back to the lower courts. She makes it sound that they crowned a king. She uses the tired trope you hear so often from the Dems " No man is above the law" . ( “a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”)This they will not use when Clueless Joe unilaterally decides that student loans are forgiven or that the borders are now open.
I can't emphasis how hysterical and unhinged Justice Sotomayor's dissent sounds.
She seriously claims that a President can now order the Navy Seals to assassinate a political rival with immunity . She says a President can organize a coup to retain power.
She says that a President can take a bribe for a pardon .
She is wrong although past Presidents have not been held accountable for that .
Hasidic Clemency Case Entangles Hillary Clinton - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich continues to pay big (nypost.com)
The issue was separation of powers . SCOTUS confined their opinion to that issue. The charges against Trump have not gone away. The prosecution can proceed . Had the DOJ taken that into account then there would not have been this delay. But their goal is not justice under the law. It is "get Trump" .
Bold prediction. Now that it looks like other cases will be delayed until after the election ; Judge Merchan in NY will sentence Trump to jail July 11 . 4 days before the Repub convention.
Trump's lawyers have petitioned the Judge to set aside the verdict based on the SCOTUS ruling. That will be denied. The case was local and personal not subject to Presidential immunity.
The Dems want him in jail by any means necessary. Riker's Island is perfect for their purposes where a random shiv can always be found or an unexplained suicide.
Here is Clueless Joe's remarks about the SCOTUS immunity ruling.
President Biden Delivers Remarks on the Supreme Court's Immunity Ruling (youtube.com)Quote:
“Today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what the president can do,” “The power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States. The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone.”
And here is his reaction to SCOTUS ruling on his student loan forgiveness .
Joe Biden on X: "I promised to ease student debt for millions of folks. The Supreme Court blocked me, but it didn’t stop me. I found another way to help more than 3.7 million people—teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters—with over $130 billion in relief." / X
Translation. "I promised to force millions of other Americans to fork over money we could use to pay off these student loans that were oftentimes foolishly entered into. But not to worry! As with most new federal spending initiatives, no taxes will be raised. We'll just borrow it, thus postponing the pain until years down the road. We're clever little buzzards, aren't we? And now, of course, we expect those who benefit from this boondoggle to vote democrat."Quote:
"I promised to ease student debt for millions of folks. The Supreme Court blocked me, but it didn’t stop me. I found another way to help more than 3.7 million people—teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters—with over $130 billion in relief."
Here is how Robert's addressed Sotomayor's concerns in her dissent
BAM !!!!Quote:
The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. … Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors.
wow in a surprise move Bragg has authorized a letter to Judge Merchan indicating he does not oppose a delay in sentencing to consider the SCOTUS immunity decision's impact on the case.
Honestly I don't think it impacts the case at all because none of it was related to Trump's official duties as President .
Judge Merchan delayed Trump sentencing until Sept 18 . I still contend they will put him in jail before the election.
Not surprising ;the DOJ is not happy that convictions and admissions of guilt involving the Jan 6 riot at the Capitol will likely have to be reversed or at least revisited .
The SCOTUS Fisher decision said that Sec 1512(c)(2) is about document tampering ;not disrupting a Congressional proceeding.
You can count on the fact that Jack Smith won't let it rest . His record with SCOTUS is one of failure ( see when SCOTUS unanimously smacked down his conviction of former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell
Supreme Court Throws Out Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's Conviction : The Two-Way : NPR
.)
Jack Smith tends to overreach .
Look for him to try to rewrite the convictions and indictments in a language that is more acceptable to SCOTUS interpretation of the law ;probably something like they targeted the documents that the Senate was using or some other nonsense like the "ballot " being a document.
Then the charade of DC judges rubber stamping and DC juries convicting the defendants will proceed .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:51 PM. |