Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts

Not going anywhere. Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

Not going anywhere. Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot. I would be surprised if they hear this.

Story by Katherine Fung.

The legal debate about whether or not former President Donald Trump should be allowed to appear on the 2024 ballot has made its way before the Supreme Court.

The court distributed John Castro v. Donald Trump to the justices for conference on Wednesday ahead of the upcoming term, which will begin on October 2. Conference is to take place on September 26 and the case is expected to be decided on or before October 9.

Castro, a tax attorney running for the Republican nomination next year, sent his petition to the Supreme Court last month, asking the justices to answer whether political candidates can challenge the eligibility of another candidate of the same party running for the same nomination “based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes.”

The lawsuit is seeking to argue that Trump should not be allowed to run for the White House based on section three of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding public office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. While Trump has not been charged with insurrection, Castro is pointing to Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol riot.

The former president, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges in four criminal indictments this year, blasted attempts to remove his name from his ballot using the constitutional clause on Monday, remarking that most in the legal field have already called those efforts a long shot and warned that they could prove to be tricky water to navigate.

“Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“Like Election Interference, it is just another ‘trick’ being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Newsweek reached out to Trump’s attorney, Jesse Binnall via email for comment.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani previously told Newsweek that it’s unlikely for the justices to side with Castro since Trump has yet to be charged or convicted of insurrection and rebellion.

“A conviction is not required under the plain language of the Constitution, but it’s telling that even those prosecuting Trump don’t believe that there is enough evidence to convict him or insurrection or sedition,” Rahmani said.

Other efforts to challenge Trump’s candidacy using the 14th Amendment have been unsuccessful. The case brought by tax attorney Lawrence Caplan in Florida was dismissed after the judge ruled that the lawsuit lacked standing and noted that the “injuries alleged” were not “particular” to the plaintiffs.

“An individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual’s qualified to hold public office,” Judge Robin Rosenberg wrote.

Castro, however, argues that his case would have enough standing because he is directly impacted by Trump’s name being on the ballot since he is also running for the Republican nomination.

“Castro and Trump are not only competing for the same political position within the same political party but are also appealing to the same voter base,” the Supreme Court petition reads. “In fact, throughout his campaigning efforts to date, Castro has spoken to thousands of voters who have expressed that they would vote for Castro only if Trump is not a presidential candidate as they maintain political loyalty to Trump.”

“Castro will further suffer irreparable competitive injuries if Trump, who is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, is able to attempt to secure votes in primary elections and raise funds. Trump’s constitutionally unauthorized undertaking will put Castro at both a voter and donor disadvantage,” it said.

Castro, whose social media bios read “2024 Republican Presidential Candidate Suing Trump to Disqualify Him for January 6,” was a supporter of Trump until the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, at which point he became a fierce critic of the former president. Castro had donated to Trump’s campaign after his 2016 victory.

 

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic Commentary Corruption COVID Government Overreach Links from other news sources.

Pence got one thing right. Biden blew it when it came to COVID.

Pence got one thing right. Biden blew it when it came to COVID.

Let’s face it, Pence is not going to be the Republican nominee, but he does have firsthand knowledge of some of the White House policies and procedures.

The left was screaming about needing the vaccines. Even claimed that the vaccines would prevent COVID ( We found out more vaccinated started dying than the unvaccinated under Biden. ).

So, this happened according to Pence. 

The Biden administration, after taking office in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, “dropped the ball” after the previous administration left it with the tools to keep up with the fight, former Vice President Mike Pence, who is campaigning for the GOP presidential nomination, said on Newsmax Saturday.

“It’s remarkable to think that that the Biden administration, in their first year of COVID, tragically lost more Americans to the COVID pandemic, [even] with all of the tools that we left behind, than we lost in a year when we began with no tools whatsoever,” Pence said on Newsmax’s “America Right Now.”

Instead, under President Joe Biden, “they defaulted into vaccine mandates, and they dropped the ball on testing,” said Pence. “They dropped the ball on therapeutics, so there’s a lot of lessons to be learned.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach How sick is this? Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law

How crazy is this? Fani says defendants have no Constitutional rights.

How crazy is this? Fani says defendants have no Constitutional rights. Fani Willis stated that based on Georgia law, asking for a speedy trial or separation from the other defendants causes this.

“Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to the State’s discovery responses ten (10) days in advance of trial.”

“Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to notice of the State’s similar transaction evidence ten (10) days in advance of trial.”

“Defendants cannot now complain that they received less than seven (7) days notice of the trial date in this case.”

 

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Judge’s order in Mark Meadows case “could be very bad news” for Fani Willis.

Judge’s order in Mark Meadows case “could be very bad news” for Fani Willis.

By Areeba Shah.

U.S. District Court Judge Steve Jones on Tuesday ordered Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and former president Donald Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows to offer opinions on a key matter essential to addressing Meadows’s argument that his Georgia prosecution should be tried in federal court.

Jones asked both parties to provide their views on whether “a finding that at least one (but not all) of the overt acts charged occurred under the color of Meadow’s office [would] be sufficient for federal removal of a criminal prosecution under [the federal removal statute].”

When Meadows took the stand on Tuesday, he argued he was acting in his capacity as Trump’s top White House aide when he reached out to Georgia officials following the 2020 elections. Fulton County prosecutors, on the other hand, asserted that Meadows’ actions went well beyond the responsibilities of his federal position.

Meadows was charged in Willis’ sprawling racketeering indictment, which accuses him and 17 others of conspiring to subvert the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.

In court documents, his legal team has already revealed their plans to seek the dismissal of the charges from a federal judge if the case is transferred to federal court, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Even if a judge doesn’t dismiss the charges, the shift to federal court would provide Meadows with a broader and potentially more conservative pool of jurors and bar cameras from entering the courtroom.

The pivotal point of contention for the removal hinges mainly on whether Meadows can prove that he was indicted for actions he carried out in his capacity as a federal official.

Clark Cunningham, professor of law at Georgia State University, also weighed in on X, formerly Twitter, arguing that this order “could be very bad news” for Willis.

“If I were the DA, I would ask grand jury for a superseding indictment that removes the name of Mark Meadows from Acts 5, 6, 7, and 19 of Count 1 (but continuing the allegations as to Donald Trump),” he wrote.

The first three alleged overt acts by Meadows (Acts 5, 6 and 7) are not necessary to establish his liability under RICO, but keeping them in the indictment now runs an “enormous risk” for the DA of losing the removal issue, in light of Judge Jones’ order, since these overt acts come closest to meeting the test for federal officer removal, he added.

Cunningham explained that Acts 5 and 7 involve White House meetings between Trump and state legislators, for which Meadows made “plausible claims” on the witness stand that his role was limited to what the Chief of Staff typically does. Act 6 alleges only that Meadows asked a member of Congress from Pennsylvania for the phone numbers of the leaders of the state legislature in Pennsylvania, again saying this was a typical task for a chief of staff.

“Act 19 alleges that Trump & Meadows met together with another White House staffer, John McEntee and asked him to prepare a memo for a strategy to disrupt the January 6 session of Congress,” Cunningham wrote. “Meadows testified firmly that Act 19 did not describe anything he had done and it is not worth continuing to try and prosecute Meadows for Act 19.”

Jones ordered that Willis and attorneys for Meadows file their briefs by 5 p.m. on Thursday.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption How sick is this? Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Biden Falsely Claims to Have Convinced Strom Thurmond to Vote for the Civil Rights Act.

Biden Falsely Claims to Have Convinced Strom Thurmond to Vote for the Civil Rights Act.

By PAUL BOIS-Breitbart.

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.

AG on X: “Any idea what Biden is talking about? Strom Thurmond voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he died almost 40 years later, and Biden was in college at that time… https://t.co/wxns7kZE4u” / X (twitter.com)

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.

 

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

National Archives Has 5,400 Biden Emails With Pseudonyms.

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.

BY Jeffrey Rodack

 

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Links from other news sources.

GAO to Probe Decision to Keep Space Command in Colorado.

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.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Corruption Crime Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Dershowitz And Turley Pour Cold Water on Idea That Trump’s Trials Will Begin Before Election.

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 YorkFloridaWashington, 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.”

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.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Crime Elections Faked news Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. MSM

Weaponization of Social Media. Google Censors Campaign Websites of Republicans, RFK Jr.

Weaponization of Social Media. Google Censors Campaign Websites of Republicans, RFK Jr. What’s it tell you when President Joe Biden’s campaign website, of course, showed up as the second search result along with a Democratic Party challenger Marianne Williamson’s campaign website, which came up as the fifth result. But not one Republican website just before the debate last week?

This from The Media Research Center (MRC), which monitors bias in media and tech companies, discovered the biased search results when conducting searches on Google for “presidential campaign websites.”

And forget about trying to find Robert Kennedy Jr.

US 2024 Presidential hopeful Robert Kennedy, Jr. (R), speaks during an address to the New Hampshire Senate at the State House in Concord, New Hampshire, on June 1, 2023. (Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP) (Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images)

US 2024 Presidential hopeful Robert Kennedy, Jr. (R), speaks during an address to the New Hampshire Senate at the State House in Concord, New Hampshire, on June 1, 2023. (Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP) (Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images)

Notably, 2024 Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., did not appear in Google’s search results even though he is, at present, the biggest threat to President Joe Biden’s nomination.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Corruption Crime Government Overreach Just my own thoughts Links from other news sources.

Just my two cents. Why affirmative action DA wants to move up all 19 cases.

Just my two cents. Why affirmative action DA wants to move up all 19 cases. Willis was thrown a curve ball when co-defendant Kenneth Chesebro’s Wednesday request for a speedy trial.

Willis filed a motion Thursday in response to co-defendant Kenneth Chesebro’s Wednesday request for a speedy trial. She had initially requested to set the trial for March 4, 2024, just one day before Super Tuesday.

Now Chesebro made a brilliant move. He can request a speedy trial. Willis cannot. She knows that with the Chesebro trial she has to present all her evidence upfront.

This gives the other Defendents including Trump enough time to prepare for what she has. If she doesn’t reveal all her evidence, she can be found in violation.