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.
Why every vote does count Part 2. From now till election day, I’ll be saying that every vote counts. Do not stay home or mail in your ballot. Here’s a race that the Republicans were leading by 5%. What happened? Many did not vote. But just barely the Republican won.
A recount in a House of Delegates district south of Richmond confirmed Wednesday that Del. Kim Taylor (R-Dinwiddie) prevailed over Democrat Kimberly Pope Adams, though her margin of victory shrank. Taylor won with 14,289 votes — 53 more than the 14,236 for Adams. The recount shifted 25 votes to the Democrat, who conceded.
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.
You got to be kidding me. After a crushing defeat, Lee is running for her Congressional seat. Just a few weeks back, Lee got her butt whipped in the mayoral race. Now she’s running for her old seat again.
She will be running against a former employee of hers. I guess some folks just can’t walk away.
How sick is this? California Republicans and Green Party need not apply. Voting in the March 5, 2024, Presidential Primary Election. I received an email the other day directing me to the California Secretary of States website. I was surprised to find this.
Voting in the March 5, 2024, Presidential Primary Election
Your vote-by-mail ballot will not have presidential candidates on it.
As a voter who declined to provide a political party preference, you are considered a “No Party Preference (NPP)” voter, and your ballot will not have presidential candidates on it.
If you want to vote for U.S. President, you must request a ballot with presidential candidates from one of the following parties:
Ask the poll worker for a ballot with either American Independent, Democratic, or Libertarian party presidential candidates when checking-in at a polling place or vote center.
If you want to vote for the Green, Peace and Freedom, or Republican parties’ presidential candidates:
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.
Privileged White Guy defeats Affirmative Action BLM Supporter for Houston Mayor. How can this be? In a city that’s made up of 76% population are people of color, a privileged white guy won as the next mayor of Houston. Below from CBS.
Democratic state Sen. John Whitmire defeated Democratic U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Saturday night in Houston’s closely watched mayoral race, according to the Associated Press.
As of Saturday evening, Whitmire was leading by a resounding margin of 65.27% to 34.73%.
Trump still is the one to beat. MicrosoftTeams-image
Short and sweet. Who won the debate last night? Yes, I watched the two-hour debate, and yes Donald Trump is still the one to beat. I did like that the focus was mostly on Biden’s failed policies, and Chris needs to get a life.
Of course, the four are still so far behind, and Haley is making the John McCain mistake thinking that the media and Progressives support her. VIVEK WON THE BATTLE FOR VP. DESANTIS WON THE DEBATE.
For time reasons, I had to cut my actual address a bit short Thursday. This statement, which began with a nod to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, is what was entered into the congressional record:
November 30, 2023
Chairman Jordan, ranking member Plaskett, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Exactly one year ago today I had my first look at the documents that came to be known as the Twitter Files. One of the first things Michael, Bari Weiss and I found was this image, showing that Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya had been placed on a “trends blacklist”:
This was not because he was suspected of terrorism or incitement or of being a Russian spy or a bad citizen in any way. Dr. Bhattacharya’s crime was doing a peer-reviewed study that became the 55th-most read scientific paper of all time, which showed the WHO initially overstated Covid-19 infection fatality rates by a factor of 17. This was legitimate scientific opinion and should have been an important part of the public debate, but Bhattacharya and several of his colleagues instead became some of the most suppressed people in America in 2020 and 2021.
That’s because by then, even true speech that undermined confidence in government policies had begun to be considered a form of disinformation, precisely the situation the First Amendment was designed to avoid.
When Michael and I testified before the good people of this Committee in March we mentioned this classically Orwellian concept of “malinformation” — material that is somehow both true and wrong — as one of many reasons everyone should be concerned about these digital censorship programs.
But there’s a more subtle reason people across the spectrum should care about this issue.
Former Executive Director of the ACLU Ira Glasser once explained to a group of students why he didn’t support hate speech codes on campuses. The problem, he said, was “who gets to decide what’s hateful… who gets to decide what to ban,” because “most of the time, it ain’t you.”
The story that came out in the Twitter Files, and for which more evidence surfaced in both the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit and this Committee’s Facebook Files releases, speaks directly to Glasser’s concerns.
There’s been a dramatic shift in attitudes about speech, and many politicians now clearly believe the bulk of Americans can’t be trusted to digest information. This mindset imagines that if we see one clip from RT we’ll stop being patriots, that once exposed to hate speech we’ll become bigots ourselves, that if we read even one Donald Trump tweet we’ll become insurrectionists.
Having come to this conclusion, the kind of people who do “anti-disinformation” work have taken upon themselves the paternalistic responsibility to sort out for us what is and is not safe. While they see great danger in allowing anyone else to read controversial material, it’s taken for granted that they’ll be immune to the dangers of speech.
This leads to the one inescapable question about new “anti-disinformation” programs that is never discussed, but must be: who does this work? Stanford’s Election Integrity Project helpfully made a graphic showing the “external stakeholders” in their content review operation. It showed four columns: government, civil society, platforms, media:
One group is conspicuously absent from that list: people. Ordinary people! Whether America continues the informal sub rosa censorship system seen in the Twitter Files or formally adopts something like Europe’s draconian new Digital Services Act, it’s already clear who won’t be involved. There’ll be no dockworkers doing content flagging, no poor people from inner city neighborhoods, no single moms pulling multiple waitressing jobs, no immigrant store owners or Uber drivers, etc. These programs will always feature a tiny, rarefied sliver of affluent professional-class America censoring a huge and ever-expanding pool of everyone else.
Take away the high-fallutin’ talk about “countering hate” and “reducing harm” and “anti-disinformation” is just a bluntly elitist gatekeeping exercise. If you prefer to think in progressive terms, it’s class war. The math is simple. If one small demographic over here has broad control over the speech landscape, and a great big one over there does not, it follows that one group will end up with more political power than the other. Which one is the winner? To paraphrase Glasser, it probably ain’t you.
It isn’t just one side or the other that will lose if these programs are allowed to continue. It’s pretty much everyone, which is why these programs must be defunded before it’s too late.
