Telling the Republicans what candidates are allowed on the ballot.
The Colorado Judges said that Democrats are picking which Republicans can run for President. I’m sure you heard that the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that they and they alone can decide what Republican is allowed on the ballot.
Claimed that A Gorsich ruling gave them the permission to keep Trump off the ballot. Here’s the ruling.
So, explain to me when Trump was ruled constitutionally prohibited? You can’t. Putin and Banana Republic countries have kept the leading opposition off the ballots. Just saying.
Winning for now. Labor Secretary Fails Senate Confirmation. Acting Labor Secretary, Julie Su wasn’t confirmed by the Senate who refused to confirm or deny her appointment.
This now goes back to Biden’s desk for him to renominate her.
“Upon Secretary Walsh’s departure, acting Secretary Su automatically became acting secretary under its organic statute, not under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act,” a White House official said in July. “As a result, Su is not subject to the time limits of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and she can serve as acting secretary indefinitely.”
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.
FBI Director Christopher Wray told the House Judiciary Committee in July that the bureau’s actions were limited to “a single field office.” But a report by Judicial Watch tells a different story.
Judicial Watch reported that the 98 pages it obtained through a Freedom of Information lawsuit showed that the FBI memo from earlier this year that tagged some Catholics as violent extremists due to their religious beliefs was reviewed by the agency’s Office of General Counsel. Coordination also took place with Portland and Milwaukee officials.
This is what was uncovered so far. How many other FBI offices may have also investigated and here’s the difference. Conservative Catholics and Catholic groups.
Catholic churches have been attacked more than 200 times since May of 2022.”
Why the Supreme Court must stop State Courts from Gerrymandering. We see it in Wisconsin, New York, and Pennsylvania to name a few. Legislatures create the districts and state courts step in and set their own. The US Supreme Court needs to put a stop to this. Except for Gerrymandering the state courts need to butt out.
Now in instances where the New York Legislature removed all but two Republican districts, then yes that was proper for the courts to step in. The courts picked an independent person and fairness was achieved.
State courts controlled by one party have no business creating their own districting maps. The Constitution is plain when it says that the maps should be created by the State legislature less Gerrymandering.
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.
Biden wants jail time for those who refuse to testify.
No Hunter, a Deposition isn’t done in public, it’s done in Private. Hunter Biden ignored his subpoena claiming he wanted a public deposition and cameras there to record the deposition.
The cameras were going to be there and in depositions you have a court reporter who takes down everything word for word. Not good enough for Hunter.
I’ve been part of depositions in both civil and criminal cases and they’re not public. Private hearing and 100% recorded by a court reporter. Even a cough is reported in the hearing, so nothings left out.
Now the next move is for Contempt of Congress Proceedings. Now as you know, Navarro and Bannon were arrested when they ignored subpoenas. Will Garland have Hunter arrested for doing the same?
Joe Biden thinks that those who ignore a subpoena should be arrested.
If true, how scary is this? More than 1-in-5 Mail-In Voters Admit to Cheating in 2020 Election. A recent poll showed that more than 1-in-5 voters who submitted ballots by mail say they did so fraudulently. Some highlights from that poll.
The survey asked those who voted by mail in the 2020 election if they filled out a ballot “in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?” to which 21 percent said they had done so. Though many states allow voters to receive assistance while voting, the Heartland Institute notes, filling out ballots on behalf of another person is illegal across the United States.
In addition, 17 percent of mail-in voters in the 2020 election said they cast a ballot in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident — a violation of federal election law. Another 17 percent of mail-in voters said they signed a ballot on behalf of someone else, also a violation of election law. Another 10 percent of all voters said they know someone who admitted to casting a mail-in ballot in a state where they are not a permanent resident and 11 percent said they know someone who admitted to signing a mail-in ballot on behalf of someone else in the 2020 election.
(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.
