Categories
Affirmative Action Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Black Supremacy Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics The Courts

Is AG James upset that she doesn’t get the Presidential suite now?

Views: 82

Is AG James upset that she doesn’t get the Presidential suite now?

I guess the affirmative action queen thought that Trump wouldn’t have the bail so she had her sights on the Presidential suite. Well now that it’s gone, she’s not giving up. You believe this?

New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a notice on Thursday seeking more information about former President Donald Trump’s bond for the civil fraud case, which was issued by Knight Specialty Insurance Company.

KSIC is not admitted in New York, and James “takes exception to the sufficiency of the surety to the undertaking” given to Trump without a certificate of qualification being issued to the company, James said in the filing.

Loading

135
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Education Government Overreach Links from other news sources.

Hey Joe? What part of we’re suing your ass again don’t you understand?

Views: 9

Hey Joe? What part of we’re suing your ass again don’t you understand? Biden has already been rebuked by the Supreme Court, but he keeps on forgiving loans to these deadbeat students who are refusing to pay for loans they took out. No one forced them to take these loans.

Now Biden has come up with another hair brain scheme to get around the courts. We have this from the AP. Seven states led by Missouri filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging Biden’s SAVE Plan, which has become a new legal target for conservative opponents after the Supreme Court toppled the Democratic president’s first attempt at student loan cancellation. It largely mirrors another suit filed last month by Republican attorneys general in 11 states, led by Kansas.

Loading

144
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Crime Free Speech Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics The Law Uncategorized Weaponization of Government.

Garland claims he must protect Biden no matter what. Refuses to release Biden Audio.

Views: 11

Loading

110
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Journalism. Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Uncategorized Weaponization of Government.

Winning. Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas from House GOP.

Views: 24

Winning. Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas from House GOP.

A federal judge tore into the Justice Department on Friday for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas issued in the impeachment probe of his father, President Joe Biden, pointing out that a former aide to Donald Trump is sitting in prison for similar defiance of Congress.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee on the federal District Court in Washington, spent nearly an hour accusing Justice Department attorneys of rank hypocrisy for instructing two other lawyers in the DOJ Tax Division not to comply with the House subpoenas.

“There’s a person in jail right now because you all brought a criminal lawsuit against him because he did not appear for a House subpoena,” Reyes said, referring to the recent imprisonment of Peter Navarro, a former Trump trade adviser, for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee. “And now you guys are flouting those subpoenas. … And you don’t have to show up?”

“I think it’s quite rich you guys pursue criminal investigations and put people in jail for not showing up,” but then direct current executive branch employees to take the same approach, the judge added. “You all are making a bunch of arguments that you would never accept from any other litigant.”

It was a remarkable, frenetic thrashing in what was expected to be a relatively routine, introductory status conference after the House Judiciary Committee sued last month to enforce its subpoena of DOJ attorneys Mark Daly and Jack Morgan over their involvement in the investigation of Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes.

Republicans are demanding the two attorneys testify and say it’s crucial for their ongoing impeachment probe of the elder Biden. But the Justice Department argues that subpoenaing two rank-and-file, or “line,” attorneys to seek details about an ongoing investigation would be a violation of the separation of powers.

Reyes has been on the bench for just over a year. Rarely seeming to stop to catch her breath, she repeatedly dressed down DOJ attorney James Gilligan as he sought to explain the department’s position, scolding him at times for interrupting her before continuing a torrid tongue-lashing that DOJ rarely receives from the bench.

She delved into great detail about the nuances of House procedure — like the chamber’s rule against allowing executive branch lawyers to attend depositions — and even asked whether the Judiciary Committee had followed internal rules requiring that the ranking Democrat on the panel be notified of the subpoena to the DOJ attorneys before it was issued.

Yet, perhaps even more remarkably, Reyes seemed inclined to support DOJ’s central argument that the line attorneys cannot be compelled to answer substantive questions from Congress.

They just need to show up and assert privileges on a question-by-question basis, she said — the type of thing, she said, that DOJ demands from others “seven days a week … and twice on Sunday.”

Indeed, while Reyes was withering in her attacks on the DOJ’s position, she was similarly unflinching in her criticism of the House for its stance in the dispute — particularly its claim that line lawyers working on the Hunter Biden tax probe are not entitled to attorney-client privilege.

She also said she thought it absurd for the House to argue that privilege was waived because it was obscuring some crime or fraud within the executive branch.

“I don’t think you’re going to win that fight,” the judge told House Counsel Matthew Berry, saying at one point that she “can’t imagine” ruling for the House on that issue.

At bottom, Reyes said she viewed it as unlikely that the two DOJ attorneys would ultimately be required to answer anything of substance from Congress, but that the department’s effort to prevent them from showing up at all was a brazen affront.

“I imagine that there are hundreds, if not thousands of defense attorneys … who would be happy to hear that DOJ’s position is, if you don’t agree with a subpoena, if you believe it’s unconstitutional or unlawful, you can unilaterally not show up,” the judge said.

Gilligan suggested that the employees subpoenaed in the dispute at issue are current employees, while Navarro and another Trump adviser who was convicted of similar charges, Steve Bannon, were no longer on the government’s payroll when their testimony was demanded.

The judge didn’t seem impressed with that distinction and downplayed the significance of a Trump-era Office of Legal Counsel opinion contending that executive branch employees could defy such subpoenas if Justice Department lawyers were not allowed to be present. “Last time I checked, the Office of Legal Counsel was not the court,” she said.

Reyes also sounded stunned when Gilligan refused to commit to instructing the two subpoenaed lawyers to show up if the House dropped its objection to allowing government counsel to sit in the room. “It would be a different situation,” Gilligan said. “I cannot answer that now. ”Are you kidding me?” the judge responded.

Reyes ultimately ordered the Justice Department to send lawyers to the Capitol next week to confer with Berry and attempt to hammer out a workable agreement. And she said that if the two sides did not work out a deal, she planned to require them to estimate the total cost to the taxpayers of continuing the legal fight, which past precedent suggests could drag out for years.

“I don’t think the taxpayers want to fund a grudge match between the executive and the legislative,” she said. “Bad cases make bad law. … This is a bad, bad case for both of you.”

Loading

140
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Elections Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources.

Not surprised. Corrupting voter registration.

Views: 17

Not surprised. Corrupting voter registration. The left is now saying out loud what we always knew. Register voters in only blue cities and precincts.

“Democrats donors are now getting memos telling them to stop funding voter registration nonprofits because unregistered voters lean towards Trump,” investigative researcher Parker Thayer posted on X in response to the report.

You heard the cry. Get out the vote. Well it’s backfiring on them. Democrats across the country have become increasingly concerned over the amount of support Trump is pulling from usually reliable demographics and donors have been bickering over an internal memo casting doubt on whether the party should continue using nonprofits to register unregistered voters over fears it could help Trump, the Washington Post reported this week. 

 

A confidential memo circulated among top Democratic donors has sparked a furious debate in Democratic circles about whether to narrow the focus of voter registration. Seems like it’s registering folks for Trump.

 

Loading

106
Categories
America's Heartland Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Elections Government Overreach Links from other news sources.

Democrats will have to find another way to steal the vote. Wisconsin voters approve two GOP-backed ballot measures that will change how elections are run.

Views: 22

Democrats will have to find another way to steal the vote. Wisconsin voters approve two GOP-backed ballot measures that will change how elections are run. Yes my friends they will have to find another way to steal the election from Trump. This from NBC News.

Wisconsin voters on Tuesday approved a pair of Republican-backed constitutional amendments that will change how elections are run in the critical battleground state, according to projections from The Associated Press.

The first measure, labeled on the ballot as Question 1, will ban the use of private funds in election administration — often referred derisively to by conservatives as “Zuckerbucks.”

The second measure, Question 2, narrows the role and definition of an election worker. Specifically, the measure asked voters to decide whether “only election officials designated by law may perform tasks in the conduct of primaries, elections, and referendums.”

So with the two measures passing, tells me that the folks in Wisconsin no longer wish to have outsiders steal the vote. You had the Democrats bring in volunteers from New York to work the polls.

Loading

106
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Medicare

Joe lied when he said he wouldn’t touch Medicare. This is the second year in a row he has cut it.

Views: 21

Joe lied when he said he wouldn’t touch Medicare. This is the second year in a row he has cut it. Old Joe is being sneaky hoping seniors won’t know until January that they’re getting benifit cuts if they’re in Medicare Advantage plans.

Don’t think that just Republicans are going to see a increase of almost $400.00 a year. The change underlines the growing debate over the future of Medicare Advantage, a program that now enrolls over half of all Medicare recipients

Medicare Advantage outperforms Medicare on 16 different clinical quality measures. More than 33 million seniors and people with disabilities choose MA because it delivers better service, better access to care, and better value.

Loading

114
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Links from other news sources. The Courts

No Virginia Trump did not attack the judge or his daughter. Yes Virginia the judge should be removed.

Views: 97

No Virginia Trump did not attack the judge or his daughter. Yes Virginia the judge should be removed. As you know, this Judge put a gag order on Trump. Cried because he had his feelings hurt.

A judge who made small donations to the Democrats. A judge whose wife works for James. A judge whose daughter made over 93 million in fund raising off the case. A judge whose daughter claims she had discussions about the case with him. A judge whose daughter posted Trump behind bars.

The attack on Trump’s constitutional rights to defend himself, the abuse of the law, the legal system on Trump. I have to tell you, the Democrats, the left have made a massive bet on all of this law fare that some of it will take Trump out.

Loading

113
Categories
Affirmative Action Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Education Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Stories we sometimes miss. Constitutional Scholars, Black Conservatives, Asian Americans praise ruling banning affirmative action.

Views: 11

Stories we sometimes miss. Constitutional Scholars, Black Bonservatives, Asian Americans praise ruling banning affirmative action.

A collective cheer rang out Thursday from a variety of constitutional scholars, black conservatives and Asian American students and supporters after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision banning race-based admissions practices as unconstitutional.The nation’s highest court on Thursday released a 237-page opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College in which a 6-3 majority determined that Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“Today’s victory … belongs to thousands of sleepless high schoolers applying to colleges,” Calvin Yang, a member of Students for Fair Admissions and a rising junior at the University of California Berkeley, said at a news conference Thursday afternoon.

Yang said he was rejected from Harvard University because of its affirmative action policies and he chose to join SFFA to stand up for those who have suffered.

The victory “belongs to those with the last name of Smith or Lee, Chen or Gonzales; it belongs to all of us who deserve a chance. … We can rejoice in the fact that our children will be judged based on their achievements and merits alone,” Yang said at the news conference.

Several black conservatives also chimed in Thursday on social media and in news releases, arguing the decision is a win for the black community.

“Years from now, black students admitted to top schools will say Thank you Supreme Court for a decision that removes the perception the only reason I got in is due to my race. You re-established merit as the core criteria to be considered against a standard bar of excellence,” stated Ian Rowe, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, on Twitter.

 

The Project 21 Black Leadership Network also published a news release Thursday that cited a parade of scholars praising the decision.

“Using discriminatory practices to supposedly remedy past discrimination was always going to be a recipe for disaster,” said Project 21 Ambassador Christopher Arps. “…Today’s Supreme Court decision is a decisive victory towards Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of a colorblind society.”

Project 21 Ambassador Melanie Collette added: “For years, blacks have been told their achievements are not solely their own, and that their skin color somehow played a role in their successes. It’s insulting and demeaning to suggest that blacks couldn’t have done this without affirmative action’s handout.”

The justices ruled in Students for Fair Admissions that the affirmative action policies instituted by these major universities are unconstitutional.

Constitutional scholar GianCarlo Canaparo with the Heritage Foundation also joined the chorus of praise for the decision.

“For too long the court has allowed universities to use stereotypes to racially balance their student bodies. Today that ends,” he told The College Fix via email on Thursday.

Constitutional scholar Adam Feldman, creator of Empirical Scotus, said the ruling has far-reaching implications for both public and private colleges and universities.

“This ruling not only encompasses public universities but through the Harvard decision also includes universities accepting federal funds as a violation of Title VI. Once the Supreme Court granted these cases the most obvious hypothesis was that the Court would overturn affirmative action with the new conservative supermajority,” Feldman told The Fix via email.

Both Feldman and Canaparo said they expect lower courts will experience more litigation as a result of the decision and admissions officials will now use loopholes to continue to administer race-based enrollment decisions.

Universities “may not use race explicitly, but they’ll give advantages and disadvantages to zip codes and high schools where they know they will find high proportions of the races they like and the races they don’t like,” Canaparo said.

Courts will be forced to “draw a line in the sand delineating how race can no longer play a role in university admissions,” Feldman added. “The magnitude of this decision and its expansiveness should not be understated.”

“It is tricky to predict repercussions beyond the decision’s clarity of race based admissions violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and that this will be applied in all future and pending litigation.”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett; Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the liberal side of the bench, dissented.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch quoted Bostock, which determined that employers must exercise sex-blindness when making employment decisions. Even though Title IX – which provides clear protections for sex-specific spaces, including athletics – was not mentioned in the opinion, it is unclear how Justice Gorsuch’s inclusion of Bostock will impact future court decisions involving the Civil Rights Act, some scholars say.

Despite what litigation may follow, students say they are hopeful that the court’s majority opinion will provide a brighter future for students, properly awarding merit rather than judging students based on the color of their skin.

“Today’s decision has started a new chapter in history and the saga of Asian Americans in this country. It marks the promise of a new beginning,” Yang said at Thursday’s news conference.

Another student of color who weighed in Thursday was Grove City College’s Isaac Willour, who wrote a piece for the Lone Conservative headlined “Why I welcome the death of affirmative action.”

“The things that allow non-white Americans to rise in today’s society are the things that allow everyone to rise: ingenuity, dynamism, personal drive, and good choices. To claim that such virtues can be encapsulated or accurately measured by skin color is inherently racist,” wrote Willour, who is also an alumnus of The College Fix.

MORE: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in landmark decision

IMAGE: Lazy Llama / Shutterstock

Loading

120
Categories
America's Heartland Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Elections Just my own thoughts Opinion Politics

Democrat Election Interference has begun.

Views: 11

Democrat Election Interference has begun. Well our progressive friends decided to not wait until election day to try and sway the 2024 election their way. In several states the left has already started.

In Michigan the Secretary of State is telling the county poll judges to not match signatures that are on file with the ballots. If it looks good, accept it.

In Pennsylvania Republicans went to court. Democrats wanted mail in ballots (like the last time) counted if not dated. Law wasn’t inforced in 2020. But in 2022,In the 2022 midterms, more than 7,600 mailed ballots in 12 counties were tossed because their outer envelopes lacked dates or had incorrect dates, according to the decision.

And in New Jersey, Federal judges ruling rejects a ballot design that placed candidates supported by a county’s party bosses or selected by a secret vote of county party officials in a prominent position — and now requires them to be listed according to the office they seek.

 

Loading

112
Verified by MonsterInsights