#Credibility issues of J.D. Vance

[in-sightpublishing]

Kirk Kirkpatrick on the American 2024 Election

                        Publisher: In-Sight Publishing Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014 Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal Journal Founding: August 2, 2012 Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed Access: Electronic/Digital & Open…

[collapsedsquid]

The specific asylum reform that has come up in private conversations with administration officials, according to people familiar with them, is a change to the credible fear standard. Under current law, if a migrant is subject to expedited removal and put through the credible fear process, that person is required to show a “significant possibility” of credible fear of persecution, torture or fear returning to their country. A tweak to the law’s language could in theory mean fewer migrants hitting the credible fear threshold and, therefore, more being denied the opportunity to apply for asylum. It is unlikely that such a change would placate Republicans, who are floating proposals such as reimplementing Remain in Mexico — a Trump-era policy that forced migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims were processed — alongside other changes to asylum law. “The second thing we’d like to see is changing the asylum claims standard, where you don’t have 21,000 people claiming asylum every three days. I think those are the two big issues, and there are a lot of other smaller issues that I think are going to come up in negotiations,” Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) told POLITICO.

This is for the Ukraine and Israel aid

[worldofwardcraft]

Defending the indefensible.

August 17, 2023

Between the two of them, DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County DA Fani Willis have amassed such an enormous pile of evidence — much of it from Trump's own mouth — that it's virtually impossible for career criminal Donald Trump's Republican defenders to come up with any kind of credible justification for the felonies spelled out in the indictments against him.

According to these indictments, Trump (abetted by his gang of motley mobsters) is charged with dozens of federal and Georgia RICO crimes in connection with his plot to steal the 2020 election. But since GOPers can't find any plausible way to exonerate him, they've decided to pretend he's being accused of a different crime — speaking his mind.

One of Trump's dollar-store lawyers, John Lauro (pictured above facing the nation, but not facts) called Smith's indictment “an attack on free speech and political advocacy.” On CNN, Lauro said it was “an effort to not only criminalize, but also to censor free speech.” Then on NBC's "Meet the Press,"

The defense is quite simple. President Trump believed in his heart of hearts that he had won that election, and as any American citizen, he had a right to speak out under the First Amendment.

Trump's posse of undying supporters immediately took up the cry. Exclaimed ex-congressman Justin Amash (MI), "The latest indictment…attempts to criminalize Trump’s routine misstatements of fact and law." Senator Marco Rubio (FL) warned, “Apparently it is now a crime to make statements challenging election results.” And Ohio Senator J.D. Vance fumed, "They’re trying to throw the former president in prison for saying 'bad' things."

In the wake of Monday's Georgia indictment, the Trump campaign issued a typically falsehood-filled response that said, "They are taking away President Trump's First Amendment right to free speech, and the right to challenge a rigged and stolen election…"

Setting aside the fact that he remains president only in his imagination, Trump's First Amendment rights are not in dispute. He's being prosecuted for what he did, not for what he said or believes. As Jimmy Gurulé, professor of criminal law at Notre Dame Law School, explains.

When he takes action to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, based on this belief that he’s expressed, that is the action that converts his protected speech into criminal conduct that can be punished.

Republicans can argue all day long that Special Counsel Smith and DA Willis are enjoining Trump's free speech. But if you read the actual charges, you'll quickly see they're all about criminal conduct, not conversations.