Asking Garland to do something illegal?
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
How afraid is Biden of Trump? Ask the NY Times.
Times reporters Katie Benner, Katie Rogers, and Michael S. Schmidt published an article on April 2, 2022, about Biden’s frustration with Garland about the lack of prosecution against Trump, according to two people familiar with Biden’s comments.
“The attorney general’s deliberative approach has come to frustrate Democratic allies of the White House and, at times, President Biden himself,” the Times reported. “As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, according to two people familiar with his comments.”
“And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6,” the report added.
The Confederate Memorial, erected in 1914, at Arlington National Cemetery.Credit...Calla Kessler/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Why are they taking down Confederate Statues and Monuments? Hiding the Democrats past? The left has continued their assult on anything named or having to do with the Confederacy. Trying to hide their past?
When you think of the KKK, Jim Crow, or the Confederacy, it comes back to the Democrats and their legacy. The three mentioned are all creations of the Democrats.
Of course that’s not taught in the schools. They just talk and teach about how horrable all that was. Slavery and all of that The latest move
A Confederate memorial is to be removed from Arlington National Cemetery in northern Virginia in the coming days, part of the push to remove symbols that commemorate the Confederacy.
Now a judge did give a temporary stay. Let’s see how that works out.
Iranian protesters burn an Israeli flag during an anti-Israel rally at Enqelab-e Eslami (Islamic Revolution) Square. (Sobhan Farajvan via Getty Images)
Hopefully this wakes people up. Taught to Hate Jews. Below is just one story of how some folks are brought up to hate. Sadly this reminds me of how a few Progressives use hate like this that I and several of my moderators have received from a few from the left. I want to thank the Free Press for this great article. Here is just one story.
“It’s like asking me how often I drink water. Antisemitism was everywhere.”
I was 17 and living in Vancouver, Canada, when a teenage boy came up to me at school and pointed to my black hijab.
“You’re Muslim?” he asked.
“Yes,” I replied, a little surprised he knew, since Muslims and women in hijabs weren’t a common sight in Vancouver at the time.
He smiled at me and said, “I’m Jewish! We’re cousins.”
I remember recoiling and scrunching my face in disgust. He was understandably shocked. I’m ashamed of this reaction, but it was involuntary. It’s how my Islamist mother and her extremist Sunni husband raised me. After my mother and biological father divorced, she met a man in Canada who was living in a mosque at the time. He took her as his second wife, which is permissible in Islam.
Antisemitism was part of my Islamic education, and it was part of the colloquial discourse when I lived in Egypt for two years in my teens. It was infused into my family’s culture. How often did I encounter antisemitism? It’s like asking me how often I drink water.
One time at the market, when I was about eight, my aunt picked up a cucumber and said, “Gosh, the cucumbers are so small this year. The Jews are putting cancer in the vegetables.” I told her that was impossible, but she insisted that “Jews can do anything.”
At 19, I was forced to marry an al-Qaeda terrorist named Essam Marzouk. My mother and her husband were sympathizers of a group called the mujahideen, which, after 9/11, would be folded into al-Qaeda, and they knew that Essam was a terrorist. My mother said I needed a man who was strong enough to control me, so that’s who she chose.
He was 36 and acting as Osama bin Laden’s counterpart in Canada. I didn’t want to get pregnant, but in Islam, wives can’t refuse their husbands. I gave birth to my daughter at 20.
A year later, I took my mother to the hospital, and an agent from CSIS, Canada’s version of the CIA, approached me and told me that I was married to a terrorist. I knew he terrorized me—he beat me mercilessly, and once he punched me so hard that he broke his wrist—but I didn’t know that he was an actual terrorist.
It took a little bit of time, but eventually, I got out. I did it for my daughter’s sake; my mother and Essam planned to have her circumcised, an abhorrent practice known as female genital mutilation, or FGM.
When I was 25, I filed a restraining order against Essam while recovering from a miscarriage at my mother’s house. About eight months later, a woman from CSIS knocked on my door and handed me a black-and-white photo of Essam behind bars in Egypt. I was finally, truly free. I wrote a book called Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam, and I now run a nonprofit called Free Hearts Free Minds, which supports ex-Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries and all over the world. As far as I know, my ex-husband is still in jail in Egypt, but I do what I can to protect my daughter from him.
Yasmine Mohammed is an author and podcast host. She was born in Vancouver, Canada. She uses a pen name to protect her safety and has withheld her location and age.
Out with the rubbish.
Photo by DJ Paine on Unsplash
Is it really one down two to go? House approves resolution demanding MIT; Harvard presidents resign after antisemitism testimony.
Is it really one down two to go? Yesterday we saw a bipartisan resolution condemning antisemitism and asking two college presidents to resign. But, does anyone think that there’s only two college Presidents who feel like the ones who testified?
So, who’s next with these radical groups? Will they take their protests to the homes of the Jews, Christians, and any other group or religious organization they have issues with? And when do the Democrat politicians stand up and say enough is enough?
Looking across the country, I’m willing to bet the number is huge,10,20, maybe close to 100? This is a sickness, and I don’t know how you fix it. If anyone has the answer or answers, I’m all ears.
This is crazy. New York Removes Medical Debt from Credit Reports.
New York Removes Medical Debt from Credit Reports . So how can a law like this even be legal? Unpaid medical debt will no longer appear in New York residents’ credit reports under a bill signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul on Wednesday.
So, if you refuse to pay your medical bills, banks and John Q Public will not know that you’re a deadbeat? Don’t get me wrong. Medical bills have put people in Bankruptcy. Still not a reason to ignore your personal responsibility.
Just because the NY governor says so, it doesn’t absolve you of your debt. If anything, it causes a false sense of security and will cause some to go into more debt. This needs to be court challenged.
(Left) Special counsel Jack Smith in Washington on Aug. 1, 2023. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images) / (Right) Former U.S. President Donald Trump. (David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
(Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Pool via Getty Images)
Reported by THE EPOCH TIMES
The special counsel’s office is preempting former President Donald Trump’s appeal of his case to the U.S. Supreme Court by petitioning the high court for a writ certiorari before judgment—an immediate ruling—of whether the former president can rely on his presidential immunity defense.
Special counsel Jack Smith has charged President Trump on four counts regarding his actions to challenge the 2020 election results; President Trump has filed four motions to dismiss the case. Several were rejected by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, and the defense has since appealed the motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity to a federal appeals court.
The prosecutors are asking the Supreme Court “whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.”
President Trump had asked the district court to pause proceedings pending appeal, noting that he would seek that pause from the appeals court if the district court didn’t grant it. If granted in either court, the legal strategy would certainly throw off the trial schedule.
Prosecutors are now asking the Supreme Court to issue judgment before the appeals court makes a decision.
“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy,” the special counsel’s team argued in the new filing. “The district court rejected respondent’s claims, correctly recognizing that former Presidents are not above the law and are accountable for their violations of federal criminal law while in office.”
They argue that President Trump’s legal strategy in the appellate court now jeopardizes the March 4, 2024, trial date.
“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” the prosecutors argued.
They claimed that President Trump is “profoundly mistaken” on the law and only the Supreme Court can “definitively resolve” the issues at hand. The court’s granting the writ of certiorari before judgment would “provide the expeditious resolution that this case warrants.”
he former president issued a statement describing the move as a “Hail Mary” on the prosecutor’s part, “by racing to the Supreme Court and attempting to bypass the appellate process.”
He also noted Mr. Smith’s poor record at the high court, which he stated “has not been kind to him, including by handing down a rare unanimous rebuke when the Court overturned him 8-0 in the McDonnell case,” in which Mr. Smith prosecuted former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.
President Trump reiterated his belief that the prosecution is politically motivated.
“There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters. President Trump will continue to fight for Justice and oppose these authoritarian tactics,” he stated.
Trial Date
The trial on March 4, one day before Super Tuesday Republican primary elections in more than a dozen states, would be the first of the four criminal cases against President Trump.
The 45th president, who has pleaded not guilty to 91 criminal counts, was also facing a May trial date in a federal criminal case in the Southern District of Florida, which is almost certainly going to be postponed as the judge is set to revisit the trial schedule in January.
In Georgia, prosecutors have pushed for an August 2024 trial start, which President Trump’s attorney has argued falls too close to the general election, likely putting jurors in the position of voting for or against him while they attempt to try the case objectively.
President Trump is also facing criminal charges in Manhattan; prosecutors originally set a March 2024 trial date, but the court is set to postpone the case around the schedules of these other criminal cases.
On top of that, President Trump faces several civil lawsuits, one with trial ongoing in New York and another two set to go to trial in mid-January.
Presidential Immunity?
On Dec. 1, a federal appeals court ruled that presidential immunity doesn’t shield President Trump from lawsuits regarding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach and noted that the court wouldn’t be the final authority on the issue.
In November 2022, Mr. Smith was appointed special counsel on issues related to the Capitol breach, just days after President Trump announced his candidacy. This summer, he unsealed the indictment against President Trump alleging criminal conspiracy in his actions to challenge the 2020 results, tying much of the case to Jan. 6, 2021.
U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan ruled that President Trump was acting as candidate Trump in much of what he is being sued for and that his actions weren’t official acts of a president.
“When a sitting president running for re-election speaks in a campaign ad or in accepting his political party’s nomination at the party convention, he typically speaks on matters of public concern. Yet he does so in an unofficial, private capacity as office-seeker, not an official capacity as office-holder. And actions taken in an unofficial capacity cannot qualify for official-act immunity,” he wrote, rejecting an appeal filed by President Trump, who is also facing civil lawsuits related to Jan. 6, 2021.
The judge added that the rejection of presidential immunity in this case assumes truth in the plaintiffs’ allegations against him, which will need to play out in district court.
“When these cases move forward in the district court, [President Trump] must be afforded the opportunity to develop his own facts on the immunity question if he desires to show that he took the actions alleged in the complaints in his official capacity as President rather than in his unofficial capacity as a candidate,” he wrote. “At the appropriate time, he can move for summary judgment on his claim of official-act immunity.”
The special counsel’s office argues that President Trump sought to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud” and that he conspired with several people outside of office to do so.
They rebutted President Trump’s presidential immunity defense by arguing that a former president doesn’t have the same immunity and that if he did, it “would be narrower than the ‘outer perimeter’ standard” afforded a sitting president.
The defense argued that President Trump has a history of taking allegations of election fraud seriously, pointing to several investigations he approved while in office, and argued that the speech about election fraud during the end of his term fell squarely within the duties of a president. The special counsel frames the situation quite differently, arguing that President Trump was aware of having legitimately lost the election when he made allegedly false claims about election fraud and “stolen” votes.
In the petition to the Supreme Court, they are also arguing that President Trump has been impeached on similar issues and that the immunity argument is “undercut” by the impeachment clause.
The special counsel has argued, and the district court affirmed, that to grant President Trump presidential immunity here would be to put him “above the law.”
If the Supreme Court agrees to issue judgment before the appeals court rules, it may throw off President Trump’s plans to stall the case past the general election.
Whistleblowers vindicated. What was the most damaging revelation? Remember when the clown Congressman Raskin said that he believed Hunter and the whistleblowers were disgruntled Republicans( or something along those lines)? The Washington Examinar.
Now Hunter Biden has been indicted on tax charges, and the indictment is a complete vindication of the IRS whistleblowers. The indictment largely follows the lines that Shapley and Ziegler set out. It says Hunter Biden avoided paying at least $1.4 million in taxes he owed from 2016 to 2019, when he was receiving large amounts of money from Ukraine, Romania, and China. The indictment alleges that Biden “subverted the payroll and tax withholding process” of his company and then withdrew millions from the company without paying taxes on it.
Well these indictments are just the tip of the Iceberg. What I found most revealing is that they also saw the trail was leading to Joe Biden. The higher ups stopped the investigation into Biden.
In closing, again from the Examinar.
Capitol Hill Democrats sought to dismiss the whistleblowers’ allegations. Investigators are often gung-ho, they said, while Justice Department prosecutors have to measure carefully whether a criminal case is warranted. And in this case, Democrats maintained, no charges were warranted against Hunter Biden.
Willis began her investigation into Trump in February 2021. Yet, she waited until the 2024 election season was in full swing to charge the former president and current leading GOP candidate.
A menorah lighting was scheduled for the 2nd Sundays Art and Music Festival on Dec. 10. Each month from March to December, the community event hosts artisans, street performers and food vendors, and Jewish leaders were told that the board was not comfortable allowing the lighting at the festival.
…
Dec. 7 marks the first night of Hanukkah. According to a statement from the United Jewish Community of the Virginia Peninsula, the lighting was going to be held by a local rabbi and had nothing to do with the Israel-Hamas war. The statement says Jewish leaders were told the event would appear to choose sides in the conflict, and organizers would reschedule the celebration if it were held under a “ceasefire” banner.
In a statement, the United Jewish Community of the Virginia Peninsula said:
The Jewish Community of the Virginia Peninsula is shocked and alarmed at LoveLight Placemaking’s decision to cancel a menorah lighting scheduled for the Second Sundays Art and Music Festival on Dec 10 in Williamsburg – claiming it did not want to appear to choose sides in the Israel-Hamas conflict. To be clear, the menorah lighting, which was to be led by a local community rabbi, had nothing to do with Israel or the conflict.
Yet, appallingly, the event organizer claimed that a Chanukah celebration would send a message that the festival was “supporting the killing/bombing of thousands of men, women, and children,” — and even went a step further, by offering to reinstate the event if it was done under a banner calling for a ceasefire.
We should be very clear: it is antisemitic to hold Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s policies and actions, and to require a political litmus test for Jews’ participation in community events that have nothing to do with Israel. Those standards would never be applied to another community.
Since October 7th, we have repeatedly seen cases of Jewish people and institutions – including synagogues, Jewish homes and businesses – being targeted, sometimes violently, by those opposed to Israel or its actions. At a time of well-documented, rising antisemitism, the singling out and targeting of Jews is dangerous and harmful, serving to further exclude and alienate our community.
The Second Sundays Art & Music Festival has been a meaningful and important community event that brings people together under a powerful message of unity, love and light. Excluding Jewish participation from a festival that should welcome everyone undermines its very message. We call on LoveLight Placemaking to reconsider our request to engage in dialogue, educate themselves on the harmfulness of their decision, and reinstate the apolitical Menorah ceremony at the event.
Jack Smith request to hide evidence from Trump legal team is denied. Last month Jack Smith’s lawyers asked Judge Cannon to keep documents under seal because it is considered “highly sensitive classified information.”
Aileen Cannon, the judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case, on Monday ordered the unsealing of documents filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who had asked that they be kept under wraps because they could reveal his trial strategy.
On Monday, Cannon ordered the unsealing of documents filed by Smith in the case, making them public, adding that she was “mindful of the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents.”
On November 22, Smith asked that the filing be kept under seal because it contained government plans to delete “highly sensitive classified information” from sharable discovery.
Cannon said that Smith had not provided “sufficient justification” for his filing because the motions did not “contain or otherwise reveal classified information.”
Additionally, a Friday court document revealed the response to the initial order of unsealing in which Smith’s team agreed to unseal the documents, as requested by the defense, though prosecutors insisted on some redactions.
“The defendants did not oppose the Government’s request, but reserved the right to challenge them later,” Smith wrote, adding that a full unsealing could disclose classified defense counsel information about how government’s CIPA motion.
“This is the same information that the Government proposed redacting. Because the Court rejected that position and ordered the Government to provide unredacted versions of the two docket entries to defense counsel, there is no justification for keeping them from the public.”
