So what happens when you register dead folks and ghosts? You still lost, but maybe now you’ll go to jail. Another case of the left caught ch
Pennsylvania officials charged Jennifer Hill on Thursday for registering dead and non-existent people to vote in Pennsylvania.
Hill, 38 of Collingdale, worked for the New Pennsylvania Project or New PA Project. She was arrested on Thursday.
According to officials Hill filed more than 300 voter registration forms using an app provided by the Pennsylvania Department of State, but 129 of those were rejected as invalid. She was also caught registering her dead father and a dead acquaintance to vote in the 2024 election.
BREAKING: Woman in Pennsylvania is charged for registering dead and even nonexistent (!!!) people to vote. She’s employed by New PA Project, an org Democrats started in 2021. pic.twitter.com/dA5O7SACws
A Georgia appeals court has disqualified Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from her election-related criminal case against President-elect Donald Trump, although the indictment still stands.
Willis’s office charged Trump and his codefendants in 2023 for what they alleged was a scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia illegally. They pleaded not guilty.
However, Willis’s case hit a snag in early 2024 after it was revealed that she had a romantic relationship with the case’s then-special prosecutor, Nathan Wade. A Fulton County judge in March ruled that Willis could remain as prosecutor if Wade resigned, which he later did.
Trump and multiple codefendants appealed the judge’s decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which rendered its decision on Willis Thursday morning.
“After carefully considering the trial court’s findings in its order, we conclude that it erred by failing to disqualify DA Willis and her office,” the Georgia Court of Appeals’s majority wrote in its decision.
The court added that a “remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring.”
Earlier this year, Trump codefendant Michael Roman alleged in court papers that Willis and Wade were in a romantic relationship.
During a court hearing weeks later, both Wade and Willis admitted to being romantically involved, although the pair denied allegations that either of them benefited financially from the arrangement. They also disputed claims that their relationship started after Wade was hired as a special prosecutor and ended in the summer of 2023.
In rendering a decision to allow Willis to stay on the case, Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee wrote that an “odor of mendacity” persisted in light of the allegations against the district attorney and Wade.
McAfee also admonished Willis for the “unprofessional manner” in how she conducted herself during the evidentiary hearing and showed a “lapse in judgment.” He also chided her for what he described as racially charged statements she made at a church in Atlanta after Roman made the allegations against her.
However, the judge said he was not able to conclusively establish that there was a conflict of interest.
Throughout the court battle, Willis has defended her own conduct and Wade’s qualifications. During a CNN interview earlier this year, Willis said she believes the appeals court proceedings were only an attempt to slow down the case.
“I do think that there are efforts to slow down the train, but the train is coming,” Willis said at the time, adding that she does not believe her relationship with Wade impacted the case.
The case against Trump and the others, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, had been stalled for months as the appeals court considered the Willis removal petition.
The ruling Thursday now means that the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia will have to find another prosecutor to take over the case and decide whether to pursue it, though that could be delayed if Willis appeals to higher courts.
It appears unlikely that prosecution against Trump will continue as he prepares to be president for the next four years. But 14 other defendants still face charges.
Prosecutors dropped two federal criminal cases against Trump since he won the presidency in November.
Meanwhile, a judge in New York has said he would not throw out Trump’s conviction in May on the case alleging 34 counts of falsifying business records, though the future of that case is uncertain.
Now that ABC and George settled, we’re hearing that MSM is going over all their Anchors comments about accusing Trump of crimes. CNN, and MSNBC most likely are the biggest worriers.
You can say nasty stuff and have 1st Amendment protection. But when you make false claims saying someone committed crimes and is a criminal, you are in very dangerous water.
Yes, calling someone a “criminal” without proof can be considered slander, as it is a false statement that could significantly damage their reputation and is generally considered a defamatory statement per se, meaning it is automatically harmful and does not require additional proof of damage to be actionable in court.
Key points to remember:
Slander is spoken defamation:
When a false statement damaging someone’s reputation is spoken, it is considered slander.
Defamation per se:
Certain types of statements, like accusing someone of committing a crime, are considered “defamation per se” because they are inherently harmful and do not require additional proof of damage.
Proof required:
To successfully sue for slander, you must prove that the statement was false, published to a third party, made with at least a negligent mental state, and caused actual harm to the person’s reputation.
Chairman Loudermilk Releases Second January 6, 2021 Report. A follow up to the first report. Worth going over.
December 17, 2024
WASHINGTON – Today, Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released an interim report on his findings on the events surrounding January 6, 2021, as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. This report outlines criminal recommendations against former Representative Liz Cheney.
TOP FINDINGS:
1. Former Representative Liz Cheney colluded with “star witness” Cassidy Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge.
2. Former Representative Liz Cheney should be investigated for potential criminal witness tampering based on the new information about her communication.
3. Cassidy Hutchinson’s most outrageous claims lacked any evidence, and the Select Committee had knowledge that her claims were false when they publicly promoted her.
President Trump did not attack his Secret Service Detail at any time on January 6.
President Trump did not have intelligence indicating violence on the morning of January 6.
Cassidy Hutchinson falsely claimed to have drafted a handwritten note for President Trump on January 6.
Representative Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson baselessly attempted to disbar Hutchinson’s former attorney.
4. Former Representative Liz Cheney used the January 6 Select Committee as a tool to attack President Trump, at the cost of investigative integrity and Capitol security.
5. The January 6 Select Committee was improperly constituted and lacked authority.
6. The January 6 Select Committee neglected or withheld evidence from its Final Report and deleted voluminous records it should have preserved.
7. The Department of Defense scapegoated the Washington D.C. National Guard to distract blame from senior leadership.
Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller dismissed President Trump’s order prior to January 6 to use “any and all” military assets to keep the demonstrations safe.
Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy intentionally delayed the D.C. National Guard’s response to the Capitol on January 6, despite authorization.
The Department of Defense Inspector General published a flawed report containing fabrications and ignored relevant information.
The Department of Defense and the Department of Defense Inspector General knowingly and inaccurately placed blame on D.C. National Guard leadership for the delayed response on January 6.
The Department of Defense Inspector General was not responsive to the Subcommittee’s requests and even obstructed the Subcommittee’s investigation.
The Subcommittee detected an inappropriately close relationship between the Department of Defense and its watchdog Inspector General.
8. The FBI and Capitol Police both failed to investigate the individuals responsible for building fake gallows on Capitol grounds on January 6.
9. The Subcommittee published more than 44,000 hours of CCTV footage from the Capitol.
10. The Subcommittee conducted an extensive review of the investigation into the two pipe bombs on January 5 and 6, and that report is set to be released within the next few days.
This interim report reveals that there was not just one single cause for what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6; but it was a series of intelligence, security, and leadership failures at several levels and numerous entities.
Over the course of the 118th Congress, this Subcommittee has interviewed hundreds of witnesses, scoured over millions of pages of documents, analyzed thousands of hours of surveillance videos, listened to hundreds of hours of radio communications, and conducted hearings.
Chairman Loudermilk released his first January 6, 2021 report, “Initial Findings Report” on March 11, 2024 which focused on identifying and reviewing the numerous security failures on and leading up to, January 6, 2021, and reviewed the creation, operation, and claims made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Select Committee to investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Click here to view the Initial Findings Report.
Sore Losers: Senate Dems want to Eliminate the Electoral College Via Constitutional Amendment.
There’s a good reason why a jackass symbolizes the misnamed “Democratic” party!
I walked away too.
Senate Democrats, having failed to defeat President-elect Donald Trump in the 2024 election, want to change the rules.
Ironically, however, those same Senate Democrats do not seem to understand that their arguments for destroying a core principle of our federal republic would also justify eliminating the Senate itself.
Monday on the social media platform X, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, announced a “bill to abolish the Electoral College, restoring democracy by allowing the direct election of presidents through popular vote alone.”
Durbin, who has also proposed arming illegal immigrants, joined two of his colleagues, Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont, in introducing a proposed constitutional amendment that, if adopted, would abolish the Electoral College.
“In 2000, before the general election, I introduced a bipartisan resolution to amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College. I still believe today that it’s time to retire this 18th century invention,” Durbin said.
Fortunately, the authors of the Constitution understood the tyrannical threat posed by people like Durbin.
Hence, an amendment is required to eliminate something as fundamental to our federal republic as the Electoral College, which appears in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Under Article V, two thirds of both houses of Congress, plus three fourths of the states, must approve said amendment.
In other words, Senate Democrats have no chance of abolishing the Electoral College, that perennial object of their unhinged fixation.
Still, their behavior requires explanation. And voters need to understand why they must never allow Democrats to succeed in their sinister quest.
First, the reason for Monday’s announcement seems obvious. Senate Democrats hope to change the narrative surrounding Trump’s victory.
According to the Associated Press, with all states finallyhaving counted at least 99 percent of votes from the 2024 election, Trump will win the national popular vote by more than two million votes. Thus, Senate Democrats’ constitutional amendment would not have changed the outcome.
Still, Trump has generated significant momentum and stands poised to reenter the White House as popular as ever. Senate Democrats, therefore, needed to rally their own voters around their shopworn lie of defending “democracy.”
Moreover, recent history has proven that Democrats prosper amid the electoral chaos they create. And eliminating the Electoral College would sow unfathomable chaos.
Imagine how presidential elections would unfold if determined by the national popular vote. Imagine waiting on California, for instance, to finish counting its votes more than a month after Election Day.
As it stands, California awards 54 electoral votes — no more, no less. So we know in advance exactly the degree to which Californians will influence the election’s outcome.
But what if California Democrats had an incentive to find as many votes as possible? Would any Republican trust the outcome of elections conducted in that manner?
Second — one marvels at the irony — Senate Democrats’ argument for abolishing the Electoral College also applies to the Senate.
“I’m excited to partner with my friends and colleagues Senator Schatz and Chair Durbin on this important constitutional amendment, which will help empower every voter in every state,” Welch said, per The Hill.
But the Senate itself does not reflect the will of “every voter in every state” — far from it.
In fact, the Electoral College, which awards electoral votes based on a state’s population, comes exponentially closer to reflecting the will of “every voter in every state” than the Senate ever has or ever will.
Indeed, regardless of population, two senators per state hardly sounds like “democracy.”
And that is the point: America’s constitutional republic incorporates democratic principles, but it is not a democracy, and it must never become one, lest we endure the unbridled tyranny of electoral majorities.
Instead, America’s constitutional system provides for a meaningful division of power between the national and state governments. The Electoral College, by empowering the people of all the states to conduct their own elections and award their electoral votes as they see fit consistent with the Constitution, helps prevent the tyrannical consolidation of states into a single, omnipotent national government.
Thus, Democratic leadership must never succeed in eliminating the Electoral College. Should they do so, they would create a convincing argument for abolishing the Senate itself. At that point, the federal constitutional structure would have collapsed, and the Union would likely dissolve.
The SDCSO confirmed that state law allows cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The sheriff argued this has already been debated and decided on at the state level, and that her authority is clearly laid out.
The post asserted the sheriff’s office “will not change its practices based on the Board resolution” and dismissed the county board’s attempt to dictate law enforcement policy.
“California law prohibits the Board of Supervisors from interfering with the independent, constitutionally and statutorily designated investigative functions of the Sheriff, and is clear that the Sheriff has the sole and exclusive authority to operate the county jails.”
Today’s outrageous decision to turn San Diego County into a “Super” Sanctuary County is an affront to every law-abiding citizen who values safety and justice. The Board of Supervisors’ 3-1 vote to embrace this radical policy is a direct betrayal of the people we are sworn to… pic.twitter.com/LypCR5S1GX
Beuchert's Saloon in Washington, D.C., condemned a server's remarks and later fired her, after she said she was ready to not serve certain Trump officials at the restaurant. (Getty Images)
By Friday, the restaurant said it had decided to dismiss the server because of this incident, calling her comments and subsequent behavior, “unforgivable.” It also said she had signed on to the restaurant’s social media accounts to speak on behalf of the restaurant without authorization.
“Not only do Ms. Van Rooy’s comments clearly violate our zero-tolerance policy on discrimination, but her decision to sign into our social media accounts in the middle of the night to post her own rhetoric in wildly offensive responses to comments is a further breach of conduct and protocol. She has no authority to speak on our behalf, and her comments do not reflect the positions of over twenty other people who make up our staff,” the Friday statement read.
“For these reasons as well as the sheer dismay and disgust we feel at her unforgivable behavior, Ms. Van Rooy has been dismissed immediately. Our staff and families (many of whom are personally offended by Ms. Van Rooy’s comments about them) are still reeling from what Ms. Van Rooy said and did, and we as a restaurant are simply horrified to be associated with base prejudice.”
Hitler, Putin, Stalin, Khomeini, do I need to say more? Now Trump for a second time has added some sense and pride to Time magazine.
Controversial past winners of the award, including Adolf Hitler in 1938 and Vladimir Putin in 2007, have left many wondering how Time’s Person of the Year is chosen.
Obama- 2008-2012
Adolf Hitler – 1938
Joseph Stalin – 1939 and 1942
.
Ayatollah Khomeini – 1979
Vladimir Putin – 2007
This group are not good guys, but they did something that definitely stood out. Did they deserve it? Not really. Trump? Absolutely. Don’t be surprised if he doesn’t add the Nobel Peace Prize.
Winning. Manchin,Sinema tank Schumer lame-duck effort to secure Dem majority on top labor board.
In a lame duck effort, President Biden and Senate Democrats tried to reconfirm National Labor Relations Board Chair Lauren McFerran, a Democrat, to another five-year term, and thereby solidify a Democratic majority on the board until well into President-elect Trump’s term.
However, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., failed to handicap Trump’s impact on labor and unions for the first two years of his term with the vote, which took place on Wednesday afternoon.
Outgoing Sens. Joe Manchin, I-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., dealt their caucus a blow, voting down the test vote.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., teed up a controversial vote that would have solidified the National Labor Relations Board’s Democratic leadership under Lauren McFerran well into President-elect Trump’s term. (Reuters)
McFerran was not reconfirmed on the floor, despite the Democrats’ effort. Her nomination has been waiting to be considered since August, when Democrats advanced her out of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP). The Democrats notably have a razor-thin majority of only 51 and making sure all senators are there to vote can often be tricky.
Senators voted 49 to 50 against ending debate and proceeding to a vote on her reconfirmation.
Schumer said in a statement following the failed cloture vote: “It is deeply disappointing, a direct attack on working people, and incredibly troubling that this highly qualified nominee — with a proven track record of protecting worker rights — did not have the votes.”
A point of frustration for Republicans was the fact that HELP Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., denied a request from his counterpart, ranking member Bill Cassidy, R-La., to hold a public hearing on McFerran before advancing her.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Aug. 20. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)
“This NLRB seat should be filled by President Trump and the new incoming Senate. Not a historically unpopular president and a Senate Democrat Majority that has lost its mandate to govern,” Cassidy said in a statement. “I am glad the Senate rejected Democrats’ partisan attempt to deny President Trump the opportunity to choose his own nominees and enact a pro-America, pro-worker agenda with the mandate he has from the American people.”
Schumer filed cloture on her nomination on Monday, setting up a vote on Wednesday. In floor remarks, the New York Democrat did not acknowledge the lame-duck nature of the vote, telling his colleagues, “If you truly care about working families, if you care about fixing income inequality in America, then you should be in favor of advancing today’s NLRB nominees. You can’t say you are for working families, then go and vote no today, because the NLRB protects workers from mistreatment on the job, and from overreaching employers.”
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., attends a press conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 5, 2022. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
In his own remarks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, “The NLRB member who’s held primary responsibility for executing on the Biden-Big Labor agenda is its chair, Lauren McFerran. And she’s up for confirmation to another term.”
He added, “This is to say nothing of the fact that her confirmation would give a lame-duck president control of an independent board well into his successor’s term!”
A source familiar with the vote told Fox News Digital that Vice President-elect JD Vance flew to D.C. from Mar-a-Lago on Wednesday morning to vote to block McFerran.
Since McFerran was not reconfirmed, the position will be Trump’s to fill.
Trump’s transition team did not immediately provide comment to Fox News Digital.
Turning Point USA founder and CEO Charlie Kirk sounded the alarm bell on Schumer and Biden’s effort on Monday, writing on X, “EMERGENCY: Chuck Schumer is trying to ram through Dem activist Lauren McFerran for another term chairing the National Labor Relations Board—a very big deal. If successful, we will have a Dem Chair of the NLRB for the first 2 YEARS of Trump’s Presidency. We need every GOP Senator to show up and block her!”
Julia Johnson is a politics writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business, leading coverage of the U.S. Senate. She was previously a politics reporter at the Washington Examiner.
