Category: Government Overreach

Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Crime Emotional abuse Government Overreach January 6 Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Uncategorized

Court Tosses Jan. 6 Sentence; Ruling May Impact Other Cases.

A federal appeals court on Friday, Aug. 18, 2023, ordered a new sentence for a North Carolina man who pleaded guilty to a petty offense in the Capitol riot — a ruling that could impact dozens of low-level cases in the massive Jan. 6, 2021, prosecution. The appeals court said James Little was wrongly sentenced for his conviction on a misdemeanor offense to both prison time and probation, which is court-ordered monitoring of defendants who are not behind bars. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

Court Tosses Jan. 6 Sentence; Ruling May Impact Other Cases.

https://youtu.be/2XRspHxKTGU

A federal appeals court on Friday ordered a new sentence for a North Carolina man who pleaded guilty to a petty offense in the Capitol riot — a ruling that could impact dozens of low-level cases in the massive Jan. 6, 2021 prosecution.

The appeals court in Washington said James Little was wrongly sentenced for his conviction on a misdemeanor offense to both prison time and probation, which is court-ordered monitoring of defendants who are not behind bars.

Little, who entered the Capitol but didn’t join in any destruction or violence, pleaded guilty in 2021 to a charge that carries up to six months behind bars. He was sentenced last year to 60 days in prison followed by three years of probation.

But the 2-1 opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that probation and imprisonment “may not be imposed as a single sentence” for a petty offense, adding “there are separate options on the menu.” Judge Robert Wilkins, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, dissented.

This from the AP.

The decision could invalidate the sentences of dozens of Jan. 6 defendants who received what is known as a “split sentence” for a petty offense. More than 80 other Jan. 6 defendants have been sentenced to both prison time and probation for the same misdemeanor offense as Little, according to an Associated Press analysis.

The practical effect, however, may be limited as almost all of them have likely already served their prison terms long ago. Little’s attorney had asked the appeals court to simply order an end to his probation monitoring since he already served his 60 days behind bars.

An attorney for Little declined to comment on Friday. The Justice Department could appeal the decision. A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington said: “We are reviewing the Court’s ruling and will determine our next steps in accordance with the law.”

Some judges who have imposed such sentences in misdemeanor cases have stressed the need to keep tabs on Jan. 6 defendants after they serve their time to prevent them from engaging in such conduct during the next election. While on probation, defendants have to check in with a probation officer and follow certain conditions.

“The Court must not only punish Little for his conduct but also ensure that he will not engage in similar conduct again during the next election,” the judge who sentenced Little, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, wrote in a ruling last year.

“Some term of imprisonment may serve sentencing’s retributive goals. But only a longer-term period of probation is adequate to ensure that Little will not become an active participant in another riot,” he wrote.

On Jan. 6, 2021, Little went to President Donald Trump’s speech ahead of the riot and then walked to the Capitol, where he fist-bumped other rioters and went into the Senate Gallery, according to court records. After leaving the Capitol, he and others prayed on the Capitol steps and sang “We’re Not Gonna Take It,” by Twisted Sister, according to court documents.

More than 1,000 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Jan. 6 riot. More than 600 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted after trials decided by a jury or judge. About 600 have been sentenced, with over half getting terms of imprisonment ranging from three days to 18 years.

 

 
 
 

 

 
Categories
Commentary Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. Science

Is This The Most Asinine Sentence Ever Written About ‘Climate Change’?

Blinded me with Science.

Is This The Most Asinine Sentence Ever Written About ‘Climate Change’?

I & I Editorial Board

In reporting on a Montana case in which a judge ruled that the state had to include the climate effect of oil and gas permits before deciding on them, the Associated Press showed just how brain-dead the discussions of “global warming” have become.

District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of several young plaintiffs – ranging in age from 5 to 22 – saying they “have a fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, which includes climate as part of the environmental-support system.”

As proof of the harm the plaintiffs are suffering, the order has a list of horribles that includes:

  • “Olivia expressed despair due to climate change.”
  • “Badge is anxious when he thinks about the future that he, and his potential children, will inherit.”
  • “Grace … is anxious about climate change.”
  • “Mica gets frustrated when he is required to stay indoors during the summer because of wildfire smoke.”

(Perhaps the judge should have ruled against the adults who are filling these poor children’s minds with climate alarmist fantasies, but that’s another story.)

The ruling was heralded by the likes of Julia Olson, executive director of the Oregon-based Our Children’s Trust, which has filed similar lawsuits in other states, who said: “Today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos.”

(Apparently, after “global warming,” and “climate change,” and “climate crisis” failed to move the needle, the left is trying out “climate chaos.”)

We will admit that we find ourselves in wholehearted agreement with Emily Flower, spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who called the ruling “absurd” and said that this “same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well, but they found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward and earn herself a spot in their next documentary.”

In any event, it was up to the crack reporters and editors at the once respectable Associated Press to come up with what is perhaps the most asinine sentence ever written about this issue.

“The ruling following a first-of-its-kind trial in the U.S.,” the AP reported, “adds to a small number of legal decisions around the world that have established a government duty to protect citizens from climate change.”

“A government duty to protect citizens from climate change”?

Think about that for a minute.

Do they mean any sort of climate change, such as the climate change that occurs around the world every year when temperatures can change from sub-zero to 90 degrees in a matter of months?

Or perhaps they mean that the government should protect citizens from things like El Nino, that naturally recurring – but scientifically inexplicable – climate phenomenon that we are currently experiencing, and underwater volcanic eruptions, both of which have driven this summer’s heat waves.

Or, longer term, what about ice ages? There have been five of them in the earth’s history – also for reasons nobody can fully explain. The last one ended 10,000 years ago, which is about how long these “interglacial” periods last. A few years ago, some researchers predicted the next ice age could begin in 2030. Is it the government’s duty to protect us from this climate variation?

Someone should take these AP reporters aside and explain to them a basic fact of life: The climate is always changing. Always. Sometimes for the worse. Sometimes for the better.

They might go on to explain to these reporters that the best way to deal with an ever-changing climate isn’t to wish change away, or pretend that denying a drilling permit will make one iota of difference, but to encourage human ingenuity and prosperity.

That’s how you deal with a climate that is always changing. By adapting to it. It’s why deaths from naturally occurring disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and so on, have steadily fallen as mankind has become smarter and more prosperous.

It’s radical anti-growth environmentalists – aided by brain-dead reporters – not oil and gas companies, who are the biggest threats to the health, safety, and well-being of those kids in Montana.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach How sick is this? Links from other news sources.

Yes, Virginia Joey Boy used an Alias not a Pseudonym to hide his secret conversations.

Biden hiding an Alias. Yahoo Photo

Yes, Virginia Joey Boy used an Alias not a Pseudonym to hide his secret conversations. Biden was using fake names and a different e-mail address when he was chatting with the folks in the Ukraine. Not just one, but three.

Joe directing where the money should go.

We have this from Breitbart.

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) demanded Thursday that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) hand over all documents and communications in which then-Vice President Joe Biden used pseudonyms such as “Robert Peters,” “Robin Ware,” and “JRB Ware.”

One email, which Comer says the committee has already seen, includes an attachment with the vice president’s schedule, indicating that he had spoken by phone to then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. The email was sent to a “Robert L. Peters” and cc’ed to the vice president’s son, Hunter Biden.

Joe Biden was the designated foreign policy point person to Ukraine during the Obama administration. The House Oversight Committee argues that Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. aid to Ukraine in 2015 until the president of Ukraine fired prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who had jurisdiction for an investigation into the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.

 

Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Fulton County Clerk on Leaked Trump Indictment- Yet Another “Explanation”

Well, it’s another day and we’re getting yet another explanation from Fulton Country officials when it comes to the posted-then-deleted document that appeared to be the indictment against former President Donald Trump — and it might be the wildest one yet.

As Townhall reported previously, a document that showed a number of charges under Trump’s name appeared on the Fulton County clerk’s website on Monday around noon, but was quickly removed. Later that night, when the grand jury voted on the indictment, it turned out that Trump was charged with exactly the same counts as had appeared on the clerk’s website hours before the grand jury had completed its work. County officials called the deleted document “fictitious” initially on Monday, then changed tact on Tuesday to say it was the result of a “trial run” used to “test” the system of posting indictments in anticipation of the grand jury’s vote.

At no time, however, amid the changing stories, have Fulton County officials explained why the document posted initially was an exact match for the charges the grand jury actually handed up hours later.

On Wednesday, we got another story — this time directly from Fulton County Clerk Ché Alexander — that added more information but did little to clear up the situation.

Here’s what she had to say when she broke her silence in an interview with Atlanta ABC affiliate WSB-TV:

She says she was under a lot of pressure to make sure the process went smoothly. In trying to be perfect she says she made a mistake.

She says she hit send instead of hitting save. “I am human,” she said. And she says she wanted to get the documents to the public as soon as possible.

“And that’s how the mishap happened.”

Alexander said this had nothing to do with the D.A.’s office and there was nothing sinister about the mistake she made.

“I have no dog in the fight,” she pointed out.

She says in an effort to handle the indictment perfectly, she messed up. “I did a work sample in the system. And when I hit save, it went to the press queue.”

Some news reporters saw it before it was deleted. At least one outlet published it.

Alexander says what was published was unofficial. “It wasn’t an official document. It wasn’t official charges. It was the dry run. It was a work sample,” she said.

Even though it had a case number. But Alexander says it didn’t have a stamp or other markings that would have made it official.

Jones asked her why did she release a statement calling the document “fictitious.”

“That was the best word that I could come up with. It was fictitious. It wasn’t real. It didn’t have a stamp on it,” she stated.

Jones asked her why she didn’t just say it was an error. Alexander says the word ‘fictitious’ is what her team came up with…

Alexander says she was under a lot of worldwide pressure to get this right. Now she says she just wants to explain what happened and get back to work. “I tell my staff we just want to be transparent. I don’t have anything to hide,” Alexander said.

Alexander says her mistake had no impact on the grand jury and its decision.

Yep, the latest version of events is that the clerk “hit send instead of save.” Notably, there’s still no explanation for how the test run which went awry happened to include the exact counts on which Trump was later indicted by the grand jury, but with any luck there will be yet another explanation or statement from the clerk’s office yet to be released in the days ahead.

Sorry, (Ms) Charley, but your “explanation” won’t wash. As the owner of several websites across different hosts, I can tell you that the “Save” and “Send” (or “Publish”) are NOT next to each other.

“under a lot of worldwide pressure to get this right.”

WORLDWIDE pressure???????? Who the @$#%$! does she think she’s fooling? Oh, right. Leftist drones accept anything — no matter how outrageous — as long as it comes from an approved source –TPR

Categories
Corruption Crime Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Federal Court: D.C. ‘Selectively’ Enforced Law to Arrest Pro-Lifers but Not BLM Protesters.

DC allows the criminals to walk.Robert Nickelsberg, David Ryder/Getty Images

Federal Court: D.C. ‘Selectively’ Enforced Law to Arrest Pro-Lifers but Not BLM Protesters.

A federal appeals court delivered a major free speech victory on Tuesday, ruling that Washington, D.C., officials “selectively” enforced a statute to arrest pro-life activists but not Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020.

In the summer of 2020, thousands of Black Lives Matter protesters flooded D.C., and over several weeks, they covered the streets, sidewalks, and storefronts with paint and chalk. While these markings violated the District’s defacement ordinance, no protesters were arrested. However, district police officers were quick to arrest two pro-life advocates in a smaller protest for chalking “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a public sidewalk outside of a D.C. Planned Parenthood facility.

WATCH: Pro-Lifers Arrested Outside D.C. Planned Parenthood for Sidewalk Chalking “Black Preborn Lives Matter”

Matt Perdie / Breitbart News

“The government may not enforce the laws in a manner that picks winners and losers in public debates,” reads the D.C. Circuit opinion penned by Judge Neomi Rao, reversing a lower court’s decision. “It would undermine the First Amendment’s protections for free speech if the government could enact a content-neutral law and then discriminate against disfavored viewpoints under the cover of prosecutorial discretion.”

“The First Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of viewpoint irrespective of the government’s motive,” the three-judge panel ruled:

We hold the Foundation has plausibly alleged the District discriminated on the basis of viewpoint in the selective enforcement of its defacement ordinance. We therefore reverse the dismissal of the Foundation’s First Amendment claim and remand for further proceedings.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed the lawsuit on behalf of members of the Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America. The three-judge panel was comprised of circuit judges Robert Wilkins, Neomi Rao, and Michelle Childs.

ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, vice president of the ADF Center for Life and Regulatory Practice, who argued before the court on behalf of the pro-life organizations, said:

Washington officials can’t censor messages they disagree with. The right to free speech is for everyone, and we’re pleased the D.C. Circuit agreed that the Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life should be able to exercise their constitutionally protected freedom to peacefully share their views the same as anyone else.

Every American deserves for their voice to be heard as they engage in important cultural and political issues of the day.

Frederick Douglass Foundation Virginia Chapter President J.R. Gurley issued a statement praising the court’s decision.

“The city shouldn’t allow some groups to participate in the public forum and shun others from doing so just because city officials disagree with their viewpoint,” Gurley said. “The First Amendment protects our right to peacefully share our pro-life message in Washington, D.C. without fear of unjust government punishment and thankfully, the D.C. Circuit agreed.”

 

 

WATCH: D.C. Police Arrest Pro-Lifers for Chalking but Ignore BLM Spray-Painter

Matt Perdie / Breitbart News

Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins also celebrated the decision and noted that “free speech rights you’re afraid to use don’t really exist.”

“It’s very encouraging that there was a unanimous 3-0 decision in favor of the free speech rights of pro-life students, peacefully protesting in our nation’s capital,” Hawkins said, continuing:

Viewpoint discrimination is un-American, and, as the case proceeds, we look forward to learning more about how D.C. officials picked winners and losers in their enforcement. Free speech rights you’re afraid to use don’t really exist, and we will keep fighting for the rights of our students to stand up for the preborn and their mothers, and against the predatory abortion industry led by Planned Parenthood.

The case is Frederick Douglass Foundation v. District of Columbia, No. 21-7108, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News.

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach History Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Democrats Denied Election Results 150+ Times Before Trump Was Indicted for Challenging Election.

Hillary going down. Rick T. Wilking/Pool via AP

Democrats Denied Election Results 150+ Times Before Trump Was Indicted for Challenging Election.

Although a Georgia grand jury indicted former President Donald Trump on Monday for challenging the 2020 election result, Democrats have refused to accept the results of elections they lost for decades.

As Breitbart News reported, more than 150 examples show Democrats denying election results, including President Joe Biden; two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton; House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY); Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX); and failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.

In fact, every single Democrat president since 1977 has questioned the legitimacy of U.S. elections, according to the Republican National Committee. In both 2013 and 2016, Biden claimed that Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election. In May 2019, Biden said he “absolutely agrees” that Trump was an “illegitimate president.” Biden cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2022 midterms this year.

In 2006, then-DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated that he was “not confident that the [2004] election in Ohio was fairly decided.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said it is “appropriate” to have a debate concerning the 2004 election and claimed that there were “legitimate concerns” regarding the “integrity” of U.S. elections. Then-Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) cast doubt on the security of electronic voting machines in the 2004 election, saying he was “worried” that some machines do not have a paper trail.

 

 

Democrats also cast doubt on the 2016 election. Seven House Democrats tried to object to the 2016 election electoral votes. After President Trump’s victory in 2016, 67 Democrats boycotted his inauguration, with some claiming Trump’s victory was not legitimate.

In September 2017, Hillary Clinton said she would not “rule out” questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election. In October 2020, she added that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying, “We still don’t really know what happened.”

In addition, Democrats supported Stacey Abrams in her stolen election claims. Hillary Clinton said Stacey Abrams “would have won” Georgia’s gubernatorial race “if she had a fair election” and that Stacey Abrams “should be governor” but was “deprived of the votes [she] otherwise would have gotten.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said, “I think that Stacey Abrams’s election is being stolen from her.” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) contended that “if Stacey Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, “the evidence seems to suggest” the race was stolen from Stacey Abrams.

“We won,” Abrams falsely claimed about the 2018 election. “I didn’t lose; we got the votes,” and “we were robbed of an election.” She also called it a “stolen election” multiple times and argued, “It was not a free and fair election.”

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Elections Government Overreach How sick is this? Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Uncategorized

Some of the charges and you be the judge.

Bring it on. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Some of the charges and you be the judge. Well just like Trump predicted, number four went down last night. Same as the other three. Hearsay and 1st amendment violations. Breitbart had this.

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is among those in the group of co-defendants in the late night indictment, bizarrely, for simply asking for a phone number.

Per the indictment:

On or about the 21st day of November 2020, MARK RANDALL MEADOWS sent a text message to United States Representative Scott Perry from Pennsylvania and stated, “Can you send me the number for the speaker and the leader of PA Legislature. POTUS wants to chat with them.” This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Other actions taken by co-defendants and Trump were considered “overt act[s] in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Such actions include Trump tweeting about election integrity hearings. In one tweet, for instance, Trump said, “Georgia hearings now on @OANN. Amazing!’” According to the indictment, “this was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” It categorized similar tweets that way as well, as Trump encouraged people to watch public hearings about the allegations of voting irregularities:

On or about the 30th day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, “Hearings from Atlanta on the Georgia Election overturn now being broadcast. Check it out. @OANN @newsmax and many more. @BrianKempGA should resign from office. He is an obstructionist who refuses to admit that we won Georgia, BIG! Also won the other Swing States.” This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

…

On or about the 30th day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, “Hearings from Atlanta on the Georgia Election overturn now being broadcast LIVE via @RSBNetwork! https://t.co/ogBvaKfqG.” This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Trump’s lawyers responded to the indictment early Tuesday morning, deeming it “undoubtedly just as flawed and unconstitutional as this entire process has been.”

“So, the Witch Hunt continues! 19 people Indicated [sic] tonight, including the former President of the United States, me, by an out of control and very corrupt District Attorney who campaigned and raised money on, ‘I will get Trump,’” Trump said of the indictment on Truth Social.

“And what about those Indictment Documents put out today, long before the Grand Jury even voted, and then quickly withdrawn? Sounds Rigged to me!” he exclaimed, inquiring why he was not indicted two and a half years ago.

“Because they wanted to do it right in the middle of my political campaign. Witch Hunt!” he exclaimed.

Republican allies have also jumped to Trump’s defense.

“Same playbook. New partisan DA trying to make a name for themselves,” Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) remarked.

“Another sham indictment of Trump timed to do maximum damage in the 2024 election—this time with the indictment posted before the grand jury even voted—is no coincidence,” he added. “Americans see through this witch hunt.”

“Justice should be blind, but Biden has weaponized government against his leading political opponent to interfere in the 2024 election,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said.

“Now a radical DA in Georgia is following Biden’s lead by attacking President Trump and using it to fundraise her political career,” he added. “Americans see through this desperate sham.”

Just another day of fear from the left. I guess Trump will address this next week in a live news conference. Should be very interesting. NewsMax I’m sure will carry it live. So how many more points will Trumps popularity grow? This just causes Trump to be more outspoken and vocal.

Categories
Commentary Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

California could resort to using electric cars to charge its struggling power grid.

An electric school bus is charging at Grant Union High School in Sacramento on July 20, 2023. The chargers are bidirectional, which means they can feed power back to the electric grid. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters
By Addison Smith

California could resort to using electric cars to charge its struggling power grid.Pacific Gas and Electric Company says to think of it as a “backup” energy source, like a generator.

The state of California, which has struggled to reconcile its aggressive “green energy” agenda against its unreliable and blackout-prone power grid, may have an admittedly “unconventional” solution thanks to a proposal from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E): Using electric cars to charge the power grid.

PG&E, which provides power for around 16 million California residents, sees “great potential” for EVs to act as power grid backup generators. “The grid needs those electric vehicles. We need to make it available, and it can be a huge resource,” he added, per The Orange County Register.

Just the News contacted PG&E for more details. A spokesman responded by lauding the supposed benefits of “bidirectional charging.”

“PG&E believes in a future where everyone is driving an electric vehicle (EV) and where that EV serves as a backup power option at home and more broadly as a resource for the grid,” the statement to Just the News read. Not only is this a huge advancement for electric reliability and climate resiliency, it’s yet another advantage of clean-powered EVs, which are so important in our collective battle against climate change.”

The company also said tapping electric cars eliminates “the need for non-renewable resources” like fossil fuels.

The state is widely regarded as the most green energy-driven state, but it is also infamous for its rolling blackouts. In August 2020, ABC reported that hundreds of thousands of Californians briefly lost power in rolling blackouts. Many times, the state uses a diesel generator to supplement the grid during peak energy usage.

Nonetheless, PG&E’s 2030 Climate Strategy Report has a goal for the grid “to quickly and safely power at least 3 million EVs— or about 12,000 GWh of EV-related electric load.” Two million of those EVs are being sought for “vehicle-grid integration (VGI) applications, allowing EVs to be a cornerstone of both electric reliability and climate resilience for PG&E customers broadly.”

According to the Pacific Research Institute, California isn’t able to generate enough electricity to meet its pending EV mandate. 12,000 GWh is nearly 18% of its total renewable electricity generated in 2021.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has openly referred to his state’s power grid as having a reliability “issue” that “has to be addressed.” Even though it has an abundance of oil, it still imports more electricity from outside the state than any other state in the nation because of its green agenda pledge. Data culled from the U.S. Department of Energy shows that California led the nation in power outages last year, with 142 major events.

Because the state has notoriously high energy costs—with some reportedly paying triple the providing cost—three utility companies have proposed charging residents based on income rather than energy consumption.

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Jake Tapper questions ‘odd’ special counsel appointment of David Weiss: ‘Maybe the whistleblowers were right’.

Finally get's it? During a CNN segment, anchor Jake Tapper claimed some of the inconsistencies in the narrative for why David Weiss was named special counsel shows GOP questions may "have merit." CNN

Jake Tapper questions ‘odd’ special counsel appointment of David Weiss: ‘Maybe the whistleblowers were right’.

Many Republicans are wary of U.S. attorney David Weiss overseeing the Hunter Biden probe, and CNN anchor Jake Tapper agreed Friday that some of their concerns “have merit.”

Weiss, the federal prosecutor who faced backlash for a “sweetheart” plea deal for Hunter Biden that fell apart upon scrutiny, will now serve as a special counsel in the ongoing investigation into the president’s son. Weiss was appointed as special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday, granting him broader authority when it comes to bringing charges.

In a statement, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., called Garland’s announcement “part of the Justice Department’s efforts to attempt a Biden family coverup in light of [House Oversight Republicans’] mounting evidence of President Biden’s role in his family’s schemes selling ‘the brand’ for millions of dollars to foreign nationals.”

“I think there are some legitimate questions about this whole situation,” Tapper said on “CNN News Central.” “First of all, I do think it’s fair to question why would U.S. Attorney Weiss be appointed to special counsel. Usually, a special counsel is an outside attorney. Now, it has happened before. Durham came from inside, and the attorney general has the right to do that, but it is odd.”

Jake Tapper

CNN anchor and chief Washington correspondent Jake Tapper spoke about the controversial appointment of David Weiss to becoming special counsel over the Hunter Biden case.

Tapper went on to ask why they would stick with the person who was responsible for the “colossal failure” of the Hunter plea deal and referenced questions about whether the original deal was “strong enough.”

 

He also spoke about the mixed messages regarding Weiss’ jurisdiction and whether he already had the necessary power to charge outside of Delaware before he was made a special counsel, recalling that the U.S. attorney had made different claims about his power in private versus in public, according to whistleblowers.

“The Justice Department and Weiss denied what the whistleblowers were saying, but this move makes it seem as though, well, maybe the whistleblowers were right. Maybe what they were alleging is true, and he didn’t have the ability to charge whatever he wanted to charge, and now he does. So I do have a lot of questions about that, and I do think some of the political questions being raised by Republicans have merit,” Tapper said.

President Joe Biden

President Joe Biden walks to Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House on August 11, 2023 in Washington, DC. Controversial allegations about his alleged business ties with his son Hunter Biden have been an ongoing scandal throughout his presidency. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

 

This was a sharp shift in Tapper’s tone compared to the previous day when he said House Republicans finding Biden family members had been wired over $20 million from shady foreign entities was “sleazy” but not criminal during an interview with Comer.

“So let’s pause it for the sake of argument that Hunter Biden is sleazy and the president’s relatives tried to profit off the Biden family brand, something CNN has reported on, what’s new in this memo?” Tapper kicked off the interview before repeatedly saying he saw “no evidence” that President Biden did anything wrong.

Comer warned during the interview that multiple agencies appeared to be blocking the progress of the investigation.

Hunter Biden

DELAWARE, UNITED STATES – JULY 26: United States President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, exits in J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building in Delaware, United States on July 26, 2023. (Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

“The Biden attorneys are obstructing, they’re intimidating witnesses, the DOJ will not cooperate with us, the FBI will not cooperate with us, the IRS will not cooperate with us,” he told Tapper. “Thank God we had whistleblowers from the IRS testified to our committee that they were told to stand down by the DOJ.”

IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley claimed Weiss alleged to multiple witnesses that he was told by the DOJ he could not bring charges against Hunter in California and Washington D.C. Garland denied there being any interference in the probe.

 

Jessica Chasmar and Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report.

Alexander Hall is an associate editor for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to Alexander.hall@fox.com.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Corruption Economy Food Government Overreach How sick is this? Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Ice Cream Truck Owners Revolt Against Democrats’ Ridiculous Crack Down.

Here we go again. Photo illustration of Joe Biden holding ice cream | via Imagine Art

Ice Cream Truck Owners Revolt Against Democrats’ Ridiculous Crack Down.

Ice cream truck owners aren’t happy with Democrats in New York City who propose a new policy that would force truck owners to ditch their fuel-powered generators and use “climate-friendly alternatives.”

The eco-friendly proposal has been slammed as “ridiculous.” Truck owners warn it will have a devastating impact on their companies.

Appearing on Fox News, Ice Cream Emergency owner Ed Lachterman said, “You can’t even have solar in a home if you have trees that are too tall. How are you going to drive around the city and have a solar-powered truck in the concrete jungle?” Lachterman asked. (POLL: Is Joe Biden Fit to be President? Results Are In…)

“It’s just ridiculous. You’re going to have product costs going through the roof trying to convert something is crazy, and if you go battery, I’ll need something twice as long to hold the batteries to run it,” he added.

“We’d probably have to raise our prices,” Lachterman’s wife Carol said.

“This guy is trying to put a law based on his agenda without thinking of anything, without thinking of the consequences, and that’s not what you’re in office to do,” Lachterman said.

“You’re there to help your constituents and to say, ‘Oh, well, we’re going to just start banning things,’ all they’re going to do is put people out of work, make the economy worse and just really destroy everything that we’re trying to build up.”

“Brooklyn Councilman Lincoln Restler introduced the proposal last week that would force ice cream trucks to ditch their fuel-powered generators for more climate-friendly alternatives over the course of the next three years,” the report said. (Trending: Disney Just Pulled A Bud Light…)

“Ice cream truck operators would be forced to rely on solar-powered or electric-powered machines, which could cost companies thousands, according to the New York Post,” the report added.

The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has created new rules that would require pizzerias with coal and wooden-fire ovens installed prior to 2016 to cut carbon emissions by 75%.

“They’re trying to go after your gasoline water heaters, your gas stoves… The sad thing is it’s an attack on the hospitality industry, which is one of the biggest employers in New York City,” Lachterman said. “New York is not going to have to worry about businesses because everyone’s going to move out. You can’t operate under these conditions.”