Posted on 08/03/2023 6:05:13 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Republican Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy announced Tuesday night that he has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice following its “failure to substantively respond” to his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking communications between Joe Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Special Counsel Jack Smith.
During an interview on Fox News’s “Ingraham Angle” Tuesday night, Ramaswamy explained that he was trying to “get to the bottom” of what Biden and Garland told Smith regarding the indictment in the classified documents case. The entrepreneur told host Laura Ingraham that he doesn’t think Smith’s investigation is as independent as advertised.
“I do not believe that this special veil of a special prosecutor is really as separate as they’re making it out to be,” he said. “The truth of the matter here is this is a politicized prosecution.”
Ramaswamy said he also just filed a separate FOIA request with the DOJ to uncover similar communications related to the just-issued Jan 6 Trump indictment.
“This sets an awful precedent in this country. They’re going full Banana Republic, full third world on this,” Ramaswamy declared.
He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2012 U.S. v. Alvarez case that political candidates have a First Amendment right to knowingly make false statements.
Ramaswamy also argued that the indictment also sets a dangerous precedent by criminalizing the behavior of four co-conspirators, widely believed to be lawyers, who were merely “giving good-faith legal advice to Trump.”
“If you’re going to indict a former president and leading presidential candidate, it better not be based on unprecedented legal theory. Further, it’s more than a stretch to call something criminal if someone is seeking legal counsel from their own lawyers,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter).
Ramaswamy also pointed out that the trial’s outcome is a foregone conclusion given its Washington D.C. location.
“This choice of jurisdiction and venue matters deeply and I think Jack Smith knows exactly what he’s doing,” he told Ingraham.
The truth of the matter here is they’re not going to stop going until they get him going or get him coming, and I say this as someone who is running against Trump. I’m polling at third in the Republican primary now. It would be easier for me if Donald Trump were eliminated from competition. That is not how any of us should want to win because that is bad for this country. That’s why I think it’s important for us competing against Trump to take a strong stand against these politicized indictments.
Ramaswamy said the results of the 2024 election needs to be a “1980 style Reagan landslide” to achieve the moral mandate required to drain the swamp.
“That’s why I’m running,” he said. “If I am elected, you have my pledge Laura that we will open this kimono up, roll that log over and see what crawls out. From the Jeffrey Epstein client list to what’s happened in these [Trump] cases, we the public can handle the truth.”
I really want to like this guy, but there was something he said the other day that made me balk.
I forgot what it was but is was important.
Vivek: now there’s a fighter with a future. Probably auditioning for VP, but we will be hearing a lot more from this guy in the future.
I'm gonna guess it was this: “I Will Not Support a Federal Abortion Ban of Any Kind”
Surprised she didn’t shut him down when he mentioned Trump.
JackWagon Smith is going to regret taking on this assignment. But apparently he may actually like getting beaten into the ground like he did in the McDonald case. When all the LIBERALS on SCOTUS joined the conservatives in totally throwing him off the bridge, you know Trump has a loud-mouthed idiot trying to go after him.
Why is it controversial that he would oppose a federal ban on abortion?
With all the abortion debates here on Free Republic, many Freepers take the position that abortion is now properly a state issue, not a federal issue.
When Lindsey Graham proposed a federal abortion restriction last year, he was severely criticized here on Free Republic.
Its his magnum opus. It doesn't matter what the result is. He will end up a hero, appearing on state-run media, with lots of speaking fees, books, and adulation and consultation from the left and academia for the rest of his life.
He wants to get in TPP - thinks Trump made a mistake by not going along with the deal.
“If you’re going to indict a former president and leading presidential candidate, it better not be based on unprecedented legal theory. Further, it’s more than a stretch to call something criminal if someone is seeking legal counsel from their own lawyers,”
Now that’s remarkable. He actually gets the gravity of it.
Something we aren’t hearing from the checked jacket used car salesgoys known as “Republicans”.
An election fraud denier, loves transgenders in the military and wants increased immigrants from Asia. What a guy. Of course, he is the perfect VP candidate for FR. It’s stunning that with this information, there are some who support this liberal.
Pure Soros Plant .
Another tired Dem operative PR Move .
TPP loving , Vaccine
Pro Abortion and WEF Soros Trojan Horse .
No more Indian Cow Pagan worshipper Dems .
Thanks for posting this. I continue to like him.
Not over Trump but as a second choice, he has my vote.
I like how he fights.
My first instinct...
There are ZERO communications between Biden, Garland, and Smith.
Does Biden even know who Attorney General Merrick Garland and Special Counsel Jack Smith are?
> I’m gonna guess it was this:
> “I Will Not Support a Federal Abortion Ban of Any Kind”
Yeah, I saw that, and I didn’t like it, but as a Constitutionalist, I can see his perspective.
However, he said that Trump made a mistake not entering the Trans-Pacific trade agreement.
THAT’s the one that turned me off hard!
> He wants to get in TPP - thinks Trump made a mistake by
> not going along with the deal.
Yup! THAT was IT!
At the risk of getting too far off OP's topic, you're correct, of course: many of us do espouse that position, and in the absence of blanket federal protection, I would be among them (under the mantra of 'I'll take what I can get').
However, my personal strong preference is that the sanctity of life be enshrined in the Constitution, and I personally cringe when a candidate announces that he's going to (effectively) ignore the subject.
In any case, I was making a guess on what the Westbrook's objectionable topic was concerning Vivek... and that guess was incorrect... so y'all may resume your normal topic.
What Vivek is saying is no Federal abortion ban. Let the states decide. You have to understand the meaning.
I do understand... but you can look at it as him saying “the Dodd decision is right” -or- (this is the cynic in me) “the Supreme Court has spoken... so I don’t intend to try and change the status quo.”
Personally, I’d rather have a Federal abortion ban, but it sounds like his focus is on other topics. Again... I was trying to be helpful by filling in a blank left from post #3. I don’t mean to derail the conversation with this rabbit trail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.