Connect with us

The Swamp

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION: Potentially Hundreds of Felons Illegally Voted In Broward County In 2016

Published

on

Prosecutors have opened an investigation concerning evidence that potentially hundreds of felons illegally voted in Broward County in the 2016 election.

There are 922 “questionable” ballots included in the investigation. The passage of Amendment 4 on the ballot in Florida restores voting rights to felons in the state of Florida going forward.

But for the purposes of the 2018 election being counted, felons do not have the right to vote.

Trending: Democrats Move to Ban Trump Supporters From Joining the Military and Holding Federal Jobs

FloridaBulldog.org reported in August in a wire picked up by the Miami Herald: 

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Miami-Dade corruption prosecutors are investigating allegations that at least 275 ineligible felons voted illegally in the county’s November 2016 general election.

The questionable ballots were discovered during an examination of a sample of 922 registered, but ineligible felon voters identified and purged by the Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections Office in the six months after the 2016 election. It is a third-degree felony to cast a fraudulent vote or to swear falsely when registering to vote.

The investigation’s existence was disclosed in a July 25 email from prosecutors to Andrew Ladanowski, a Coral Springs data analyst who contacted authorities after his public records request to the elections office turned up evidence of voting by ineligible felons whose civil rights had not been restored.

“As my unit chief, Tim VanderGiesen, has informed you, I have been assigned as the lead attorney for this investigation,” wrote Miami-Dade Assistant State Attorney Kerrie Crockett. “I would like to assure you that we are taking this matter very seriously and conducting a very thorough investigation. In order to do so, my team and I will need to acquire various forms of evidence from multiple sources. This will take quite a bit of time, so I ask for your patience and understanding as we look further into this matter.”

Office spokesman Ed Griffith declined to discuss the matter. “We wouldn’t be commenting on any ongoing investigation.”

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article216694645.html#storylink=cpy

The Swamp

What Happens If John Roberts Decides Not to Preside Over Trump’s Post-Presidency Impeachment Trial?

Trying to make sense of a messy situation.

Published

on

Several Republicans and Democrats familiar with the negotiations over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial have said that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to preside.

A Politico report that broke the news reads as follows: “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment.”

As if it weren’t unprecedented enough for a president to have been impeached twice, Democratic lawmakers are hell-bent on holding an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president. And it sounds like they’re going to get their wish: Senate leaders agreed Friday that the trial would begin Tuesday, February 9. It does not appear that Roberts’ decision is a factor either way.

This clown show needs some unpacking. First off, Roberts has very good reason to reject presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial. The Constitution states that the chief justice will preside when the president is tried. Not the ex-president, the current president. That alone should be sufficient.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Despite this, there may not be anything that expressly forbids Congress from impeaching and convicting former officials. Some legal experts have pointed out that “nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office.”

In light of all this, the radio silence of the Founders on this matter allows both sides to justify their support or opposition. Those in opposition say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there are no grounds to hold the trial. Those in support say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there is no legal reason to oppose the trial.

Furthermore, law professor Frank Bowman, speaking to the Washington Examiner, argued that if a trial is going to be held, it might be prudent for Roberts to preside.

“The vice president does have a personal interest in the outcome, insofar as conviction would eliminate Trump as a future political rival, either to President Biden or to Harris herself,” Bowman said. “I think the constitutionally safer call is that he should preside. That way, there can never be a later objection on the ground that the tribunal was not properly constituted.”

If Chief Justice Roberts decides to extricate himself from this mess, Democrats are said to be discussing the possibility of having Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the president of the Senate, preside. Also being floated is president pro tempore and longest-serving senator Patrick Leahy.

Harris has a conflict of interest if she were to preside, however. And indeed that is why the Founders wanted the chief justice of a (theoretically) non-political entity of government to do so. Harris is not only of the opposite party and was on the ticket that defeated the Trump/Pence ticket, she might very well have aspirations for the presidency if Biden decides not to seek reelection. Trump himself may have his eye on the presidency once again as well, meaning that Harris would be presiding over the impeachment trial of a potential political opponent.

So if the legality of convicting an ex-president is gray, then it becomes a question of prudence. And prudence dictates that the impeachment trial should not proceed. The side that’s calling for “unity” is engaging in something fundamentally disunifying. Any attempt to convict a former president with no clear legal grounds is most definitely not a recipe for “unity” and “healing.” Our senators should just move on and worry about governing. Enough with the political shams and shenanigans.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending