This is why they keep on indicting Trump. Latest Poll. Trump Beats Biden in Electoral Landslide. Ever wonder why the Progressives don’t want Trump running again? The latest poll sheds some light.
But here’s the really big news. In the key battleground states Trump leads Biden 49% to 41%.
If the election was today, Trump would defeat Biden in an electoral landslide.
Our poll – and other national surveys are confirming a huge turnaround for Trump.
Remember, Donald Trump never won the popular vote in the 2016 and 2020 national popular vote, and almost all polls had him losing the popular vote in both elections. But now our poll and others show him leading.
Who gets the jab. Not I. Just putting this out there. There’s much that I disagree with here, but there are some good points. Overall the article was trying to be fair, but only doctors from the left were included. I’ll highlight some of the good points.
by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting, MedPage Today.
While the FDA and CDC have yet to weigh in on fall COVID boostersopens in a new tab or window, experts in infectious disease and public health are already discussing who should get them, and who may not need to.
High-risk groups get a resounding “yes” — but when it comes to younger, healthy adults, the answer is less clear.
There’s wide agreement that older adults will receive a hearty recommendation to receive the booster, which targets the XBB.1.5 strainopens in a new tab or window, said William Schaffner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
The same goes for people younger than 65 who have chronic conditions, are immunocompromised, or who are pregnant, he said.
“Now for adults who are otherwise healthy and younger than 65, and young adults, adolescents, and children, that’s all going to be debated,” Schaffner noted, anticipating how discussions at CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will go when the group meets on September 12opens in a new tab or window. “Whether they receive a routine recommendation or one for shared clinical decision making … I think there will be some brisk discussion about that.”
Aaron Glatt, MD, of Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York, who is also a spokesperson for IDSA, said that people “who have been vaccinated, who are healthy, who are younger, are probably not the first people who should be getting in line to get another COVID booster, especially if they’ve had one.”
In addition, someone who’s recently had COVID probably doesn’t need a booster, he added.
Glatt was a strong advocate for shared decision making when it comes to COVID boosters. He gave the example of a 62-year-old who was boosted 6 months ago and is in good health. “I think for that group, there’s more leeway to say, let’s individualize the decision.”
“The good news is that you’ve had the full primary series of the vaccine and a bivalent booster, or you were vaccinated and infected, you have substantial protection against getting very sick and dying,” Benjamin told MedPage Today. “But the older you are, the greater your risk of getting very sick and dying.”
Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the goal of the vaccine has always been to prevent serious illness, and on that basis, the highest-risk groups who should be candidates for vaccination include the elderly, especially people over 75; people with multiple chronic conditions; pregnant people; and the immune compromised.
“These four groups will get the most benefit,” Offit said. “We’re just not going to prevent mild disease for a short-incubation-period mucosal infection for any reasonable amount of time.”
Neither Schaffner, Glatt, nor Offit thought children should be strongly recommended to get a COVID booster. Schaffner noted that in young children, Omicron has been less likely to cause severe disease. In addition, he said, doctors are seeing less multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) due to COVID.
“Virtually every child has been exposed to COVID through infection or vaccination or both, so the population immunity, children included, is pretty high,” Schaffner said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the recommendations for these younger healthy populations are in the shared clinical decision-making category.”
“Why does a healthy 12-year-old with three doses of vaccine need another dose?” Offit said. “There would have to be protection against severe disease and I just don’t see that evidence.”
Glatt noted that “an immunocompromised, very sick child is a different story.” But if the child is healthy, “you’d really have to show me [good data] that there’s a reason to [boost].”
Even the U.K. is focusing its booster recommendations on older and more vulnerable people. Its Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) recommendedopens in a new tab or window offering vaccines to those at high risk of serious disease, including adults ages 65 and up, people with chronic conditions, and people who work in care homes for older adults.
Indeed, that recommendation makes sense from a population health perspective that asks who would benefit most from this intervention, said Bob Wachter, MD, of the University of California San Francisco.
But he believes even young people can get an incremental benefit from fall boosters. Wachter, whose wife has long COVID and who himself experienced a trip to the hospital because of COVID — not from respiratory distress, but from a related fallopens in a new tab or window — said he would recommend a booster to his 30-year-old children because the benefits outweigh the minimal risks.
Even though people in this age group have a low baseline risk of hospitalization from the disease, a booster would reduce that risk even further, he said. It might also help lower their risk of long COVID, he added.
“I start from the baseline that this is a very safe intervention, and there is potential benefit in almost everybody, including relatively young and healthy people,” Wachter said. “But to the question of who’s most likely to benefit, clearly those are the people at higher risk of bad outcomes.”
He added that this year’s fall booster will probably not be very popular, “because not a lot of people got it when the risk was higher and the public attention on COVID was greater.”
“It’s pretty clear that the national consciousness is over it,” he said. “If you’re a healthy 40-year-old, you’re not making a crazy choice not to get boosted.”
United States Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat of Delaware), right, Chairman, US Senate Judiciary Committee, and US Senator Strom Thurmond (Republican of South Carolina), left, Ranking Member, listen to testimony during the hearing to confirm Judge Clarence Thomas as Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court in the US Senate Caucus Room in Washington, DC on September 10, 1991.
Credit: Arnie Sachs / CNP
Visits: 24
Biden Falsely Claims to Have Convinced Strom Thurmond to Vote for the Civil Rights Act.
President Joe Biden made a false claim on Monday when he said that he “literally” convinced former Dixiecrat Sen. Strom Thurmond (SC) to vote for the Civil Rights Act.
The president made his outlandish claim while speaking on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the civil rights legal group, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
“Pause for just a moment. I thought things had changed. I was able to literally, not figuratively, talk Strom Thurmond into voting for the Civil Rights Act before he died, and I thought, ‘Well maybe there’s real progress,’ But hate never dies. It just hides, it hides under the rocks,” he said.
Strom Thurmond, who switched to the Republican Party after years as a Democrat, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 before Joe Biden had entered politics, being that he was just 21 years old at the time. Strom Thurmond also died in 2003, many decades after the passing of civil rights.
Thurmond not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he also holds the record for the longest-ever filibuster opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
According to Fox News, a White House spokesperson later said the president was “instrumental in getting Thurmond’s vote for the Voting Rights Act, in 1980.”
Whatever the president meant, it represents yet another serious gaffe in his long string of serious gaffes. For instance, he has often publicly said that his son Beau died in Iraq even though he died of brain cancer after having previously served in Iraq. As Breitbart News reported, the president made a similar claim in 2022 while giving a speech in Colorado to designate Camp Hale as a national monument. He had been discussing the many sacrifices that soldiers make before citing his son Beau as an example.
“I say this as a father of a man who won the Bronze Star, the conspicuous service medal, and lost his life in Iraq,” Biden said.
The following month, the president once again claimed that Iraq was “where my son died.”
In May of this year, the president used the backdrop of a conversation with U.S. servicemen to once again falsely claim Beau died in the Iraq War. The president reportedly made his claim during a visit with troops at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in Japan.
“My son was a major in the U.S. Army. We lost him in Iraq,” he reportedly said.
According to the New York Post, the traveling press corps were “kept far enough away that the remarks were inaudible.”
“The White House press office did not put out an official transcript, almost allowing the error to escape public notice,” according to the Post.
In late September 2022, the president appeared to call out for now-deceased Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN) when giving a speech at a White House event.
“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” Biden asked.
“I didn’t think she was going to be here,” he added.
The National Archives and Records Administration acknowledged it has about 5,400 emails that potentially show President Joe Biden hid behind phony names while vice president, the agency confirms.
Getty Images
Visits: 17
National Archives Has 5,400 Biden Emails With Pseudonyms.
By Jeffrey Rodack
The National Archives and Records Administration acknowledged it has about 5,400 emails that potentially show President Joe Biden hid behind phony names while vice president, the New York Post is reporting.
The existence of the records was confirmed by the NARA and came in response to a June 2022 Freedom of Information Act request by the Southeastern Legal Foundation.
Specifically, the SLF, a nonprofit constitutional legal group, requested emails relating to the accounts of Robin Ware, Robert L. Peters, and JRB Ware — pseudonyms Joe Biden was known to use in the White House during his time as vice president under Barack Obama, the Post said.
The legal foundation sued the NARA for the release of the records on Monday. The group claims the records could show Joe Biden may have provided government information to his son, Hunter Biden.
Kimberly Hermann, SLF general counsel, said in a statement: “All too often, public officials abuse their power by using it for their personal or political benefit. When they do, many seek to hide it. The only way to preserve governmental integrity is for NARA to release Joe Biden’s nearly 5,400 emails to SLF and thus the public. The American public deserves to know what is in them.”
Stephannie Oriabure, director of NARA’s archival operations division, wrote the SLF on June 24, 2022, saying: “We have performed a search of our collection for vice presidential records related to your [June 9, 2022] request and have identified approximately 5,138 email messages, 25 electronic files and 200 pages of potentially responsive records that must be processed in order to respond to your request,” according to the lawsuit.
The SLF said none of the emails or documents have been turned over to the group.
On Aug. 17, Rep. James Comer, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chair, demanded that NARA release records from Joe Biden’s years as vice president from times that overlapped with the activities of his son’s activities in Ukraine, particularly emails that were signed with the pseudonyms “Robert Peters,” “Robin Ware,” and “JRB Ware.”
Comer, R-Ky., in a letter to NARA Archivist Colleen Shogan, also requested that all unredacted documents and communications in which Hunter Biden, Eric Schwerin, or Devon Archer are copied; and for all drafts of a speech Joe Biden delivered to the Ukrainian Rada, or parliament, in December 2015.
GAO to Probe Decision to Keep Space Command in Colorado. Two separate commissions were done and both said that the Space Command should be moved from Colorado. I believe from a choice of five locations the Colorado location was picked either fourth or fifth.
But Biden says that the Space Command stays where it is. rejecting the best location. Now the GAO is going to investigate Biden’s decision.
The Government Accountability Office will investigate the White House’s choice not to move the headquarters for U.S. Space Command from Colorado to Alabama as decided by the previous administration.
In total, the researchers looked at 78 studies involving more than a million people across the world. Results indicated that surgical masks reduced the risk of catching 'Covid or a flu-like illness' by just five percent - a figure so low it may not be statistically significant
Visits: 20
Worth Posting again. Masks really don’t work that well.
Just in case you missed it, we did a similar story several months back. With the latest hysteria that’s going on out there with the fanatics about the alleged resurgence of COVID, I thought it best to remind folks on masking up. This from the Cochrane Institute.
Data collection and analysis
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
Main results
We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies.
The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear.
Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks
We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).
Dershowitz And Turley Pour Cold Water on Idea That Trump’s Trials Will Begin Before Election.
Story by Arjun Singh
Legal experts said that former President Donald Trump’s criminal trials are unlikely to occur before the 2024 general election.
Trump’s criminal proceedings in four jurisdictions are currently in a pre-trial phase, involving discovery, motions, jury selection and interlocutory appeals — which experts believe will delay the process by over a year.
“It’s like asking a brain surgeon to perform an operation with three days’ notice,” said Alan Dershowitz.
Legal experts have said that former President Donald Trump’s trials in four separate criminal proceedings are unlikely to be held before the general election in November 2024.
Trump, who is the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, has been indicted four times in New York, Florida, Washington, D.C. and Georgia on state and federal charges. Following Trump’s initial appearances, prosecutors in each jurisdiction have been seeking a speedy trial despite protests from his legal team, with experts saying it’s likely that the trials will occur after the general election.
“They’re trying to get convictions before the election,” said Alan Dershowitz, the Felix Frankfurter professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the book “Get Trump,” to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “[But] they can’t get it done in two weeks, they know it will take longer than that.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1695150791248490953
Dershowitz’s comments refer to the initial attempt by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting Trump in Miami and Washington, D.C., to have the latter trial begin on Jan. 2, 2024, two weeks before the Iowa Caucuses. Trump has moved to have the trial pushed back to April 2026.
Meanwhile, in Florida, a federal judge tentatively set Aug. 14, 2024, as the beginning of his trial in Smith’s other case, where Trump is accused of violating the Espionage Act by refusing to return classified documents he stored at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, during his presidency.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has requested that Trump’s Georgia trial begin on March 4, 2024. After one of Trump’s co-defendants, Kenneth Chesebro, asserted his constitutional right to a speedy trial, Willis’s office moved for the trial to begin on Oct. 23, 2023.
Trump has opposed Willis’ request and filed a motion in opposition on Thursday. The complexity of the case and others Trump is facing, as well as the likelihood of appeals to pre-trial proceedings, lead legal experts to believe that it is unlikely any of Trump’s trials will begin before Nov. 5, 2024, when the general election is held.
“[I]t seems unlikely that most [trials] will proceed as scheduled. There are threshold challenges and dispositive motions that will have to be addressed. Some may involve appeals,” said Jonathan Turley, the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro professor of public interest law at The George Washington University Law School, to the DCNF. He added that “[t]hese dates seem highly optimistic and a tad opportunistic by prosecutors.”
In New York, where Trump has been indicted on 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to his $150,000 payment to Stormy Daniels via former attorney Michael Cohen, his trial date has been scheduled for March 25, 2024, according to a judge’s oral order reported by The New York Times. By that date, all but four states will have held their presidential primary contests, according to 270ToWin.com.
“It’s like asking a brain surgeon to perform an operation with three days’ notice,” said Dershowitz, who said the prosecutors are trying to obtain “convictions [of Trump] before the election … it’s a rush to injustice.” He added that the courts will “probably need at least a year” in order to dispose of all pre-trial matters.
Those matters include the process of “discovery,” referring to the defendant’s efforts to gather evidence from the prosecution and construct a defense, motions to exclude evidence, jury selection and interlocutory appeals to the trial judge’s decisions by either party. “Jury selection alone in Georgia’s cases will take several months,” Dershowitz said, adding that “if [the courts] don’t accept the discovery timeline of Trump’s team, these are issues that could be appealed.”
The volume of discovery in each case is voluminous, particularly in Washington, D.C., where Trump has been charged related to his attempts to prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021. In that case, prosecutors turned over 11.6 million pages of discovery to Trump’s legal team following his arrangement on Aug. 3, much of which is subject to strict viewership requirements to safeguard witnesses, according to a court order
“If Trump loses his motions, he will appeal. If he loses at appellate court, he’ll ask to be heard before the Supreme Court. If there’s a ruling in favor of Trump, the state will likely appeal,” said Ronald Carlson, the Fuller E. Callaway professor emeritus at the University of Georgia School of Law, to the DCNF.
Trump’s team is cognizant of this fact and has invoked his criminal proceedings in other jurisdictions to seek later trial dates, according to an Aug. 17 filing by Trump’s attorneys at the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, opposing the special counsel’s proposed trial date. “President Trump must prepare for each of these trials in the coming months. All are independently complex and will require substantial work to defend … these cases will include numerous pre-and-post trial hearings,” they wrote.
The most immediate of these matters concern the removal of state court cases to federal court, which some of Trump’s co-defendants, such as former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, have petitioned to do. While a federal judge rejected his attempt to remove his case in New York, experts believe that Trump is likely to do so in Georgia.
“There will be multiple motions to remove the Georgia case to federal court for defendants like Trump and Meadows,” said Turley. Carlson said that the likelihood of a removal petition by even one defendant — given that Wills has vowed to prosecute all defendants together — means that pre-trial proceedings in that case “could take up to a year.” These motions create an “ample opportunity for him to delay the trial,” Carlson claimed.
For these reasons, it is unlikely that Trump will face a jury in any of his cases before voters cast their ballots on Nov. 5, 2024. Over 60% of Americans, including 89% of all Democrats, want Trump’s trials to be held before the election, according to an Ipsos poll released on Friday.
Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
An investigative report from the NY Post discovered that Jack Smith’s office met with staffers for President Joe Biden just weeks before charging former President Donald Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents.
Legal experts have argued there is no legitimate purpose for these meetings to occur during an active investigation into President Biden’s likely 2024 Republican opponent.
Smith’s criminal indictment against Trump has been widely condemned as election interference and political weaponization of the U.S. justice system.
“Jay Bratt, who joined the special counsel team in November 2022, shortly after it was formed, took a meeting in the White House on March 31, 2023, with Caroline Saba, deputy chief of staff for the White House counsel’s office, White House visitor logs show,” the report found.
“They were joined in the 10 a.m. meeting by Danielle Ray, an FBI agent in the Washington field office,” the report added.
Trump was indicted nine weeks later on June 8, 2023.
The White House logs offer no information about what Biden’s office discussed with Smith’s team at the meetings.
The White House logs offer no information about what Biden’s office discussed with Smith’s team at the meetings.
“There is no legitimate purpose for a line [DOJ] guy to be meeting with the White House except if it’s coordinated by the highest levels,” said former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani says the White House and special counsel were coordinating the prosecution of Trump.
“You’re damn right I do,” he said in response to whether Smith’s office was colluding behind closed doors.
“What’s happening is they have trashed every ethical rule that exists and they have created a state police. It is a Biden state prosecutor and a Biden state police,” he continued.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said, “There is no reason why the Justice Department should not be able to confirm whether this meeting was related to the ongoing investigation or concerns some other matter,” he said.
Allan Dershowitz came up with a brilliant idea on how Biden’s alleged crimes could be investigated. He was on with Hannity the other night.
“I agree that it’s a Biden,” Dershowitz responded. “It’s a scandal that alleges serious matters against the president.”
“And the matters would be bribery, and then according to James Comer, with all these shell corporations, that turns out to be true, nine Biden family members being enriched, including grandchildren.
“Look, the other thing that Congress can do, Congress can appoint a special counsel,” Dershowitz added. “Now, he would have subpoena power under the Justice Department. If the congressional committee feels there’s no sufficient investigation, they can conduct an investigation by hiring an outside counsel. That’s within their power.”
Never forget. The killing of 13 American Military Personal at the hands of the Biden Administration. It’s been two years now that 13 American soldiers and almost 200 civilians died because of Joe Biden.
Bragging about his success in Afghanistan. FOX Photo.
Remember that the suicide bomber was released from Bagram Air Base prison. If we had not abandoned that airbase the deaths would not have happened. And how about the testimony from our sniper?
Sgt. Tyler Vargas-Andrews, a U.S. Marine Corps sniper who served in Afghanistan during the surrender to the Taliban forces, testified before Congress earlier this year. Vargas told Congress that he was denied permission to shoot the suicide bomber in Afghanistan.
Over the communication network we passed that there was a potential threat and an ID attack imminent. This was as serious as it could get. I requested engagement authority while my team leader was ready on the M110 semiautomatic sniper system. The response: Leadership did not have the engagement authority for us. Do not engage. I requested for the battalion commander, lieutenant Colonel Brad Whited, to come to the tower to see what we did. Wile we waited for him psychological operations individuals came to our tower immediately and confirmed the suspect met the suicide bomber description.
He eventually arrived, and we showed him our evidence, the photos we had of the two men. We reassured him of the ease of fire on the suicide bomber. Pointedly, we asked him for engagement authority and permission. We asked him if we could shoot. Our battalion commander said, and I quote, “I don’t know,” end quote. Myself and my team leader asked very harshly, “Well, who does? Because this is your responsibility, sir.”
He again replied he did not know, but would find out. We received no update and never got our answer. Eventually, the individual disappeared. To this day, we believe he was a suicide bomber. We made everyone on the ground aware operations had briefly halted, but then started again. Plain and simple, we were ignored. Our expertise was disregarded. No one was held accountable for our safety.
157
