Why do Progressives have issues with the First Amendment? Musk sues California. If it’s not California, it’s New York, If it’s not Illinois it’s Massachusetts, and it goes on and on.
But all have the same thing in common. Violating people’s first Amendment rights. If it’s not parents it’s other politicians, lawyers, or people from the business world like Musk.
In Musk’s case, they’re not going after him in court, California is passing laws that take away free speech. What’s next with these loons?
Was Jeffrey Epstein involved in a plot to tie the 2016 Trump campaign to Russia?
A disturbing new report in the Wall Street Journal reveals that LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman introduced Trump’s inner circle to Jeffrey Epstein, who then introduced them to a ‘top Russian diplomat.’
As a reminder, Hoffman;
Bankrolled an online disinformation hoax against Roy Moore, conducted by a former Obama administration official – who also created the “Hamilton 68” propaganda website purporting to track Russian bots. Hoffman later apologized when caught.
Bankrolled Trump rape accuser E. Jean Carroll.
Gave $600,000 to a legal defense fund for Fusion GPS – the opposition research firm that prepared documents for the infamous ‘Trump Tower’ setup meeting with Don. Jr. and facilitated the Hillary Clinton-funded Steele Dossier.
Was a major Hillary Clinton supporter during the 2016 US election.
According to the Journal, Hoffman emailed people in Trump’s orbit to introduce them to Epstein, who then invited one of them – Peter Thiel – to meet with Russia’s ambassador to the UN!
In March 2014, fellow billionaire and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman, a major donor to Democrats, emailed Thiel to introduce Epstein and arrange a meeting at Thiel’s San Francisco home.
“Meet one of the guys who invented derivatives, Jeffrey Epstein?” Hoffman wrote, echoing an inaccurate claim Epstein sometimes made. Hoffman wrote that Epstein was “mostly fun, very interesting guy, you may find him perverse, but very smart on biology, computation, macro econ.”
Hoffman said he regrets all his interactions with Epstein and that he made the introduction to help fundraise for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Epstein scheduled lunches with venture capitalist Peter Thiel and real-estate investor Thomas Barrack in 2016, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. At the time, both were high-profile financial backers of Trump’s campaign.
Epstein invited Thiel and Barrack to separate meetings with Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations. Churkin, who died of an apparent heart attack in early 2017, had at least eight meetings scheduled with Epstein between 2015 and Churkin’s death, the documents show. -WSJ
So, Epstein – pal to the Democrats and a prolific pedophile, had extensive dealings with a Russian diplomat that he tried to connect with Trump’s inner circle?
The report also notes that “The documents, which include thousands of pages of emails and schedules from 2013 to 2017, don’t make reference to any meetings or conversations between Trump and Epstein,” and “don’t specify Epstein’s purpose in scheduling meetings with Trump’s associates or the Russian ambassador.”
Notably, these Epstein-Russia meetings happened when the Russiagate hoax was in full swing with the FBI’s involvement.
Yet, according to Thiel, the October 2016 meeting with Epstein and Churkin featured “nothing memorable.”
“I was rather naive,” Thiel told the outlet, “and I didn’t think enough about what Epstein’s agenda might have been.”
Meanwhile, a Trump campaign spokesman said: “None of these people were Trump campaign officials, and in fact President Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago.”
As the Journal further notes:
Epstein met with and donated to Democrats more often than Republicans, according to the documents and campaign donation records. The Journal has reported that his schedules included meeting several people who had served in the Clinton and Obama administrations. In his townhouse, Epstein hung a painting that depicted Bill Clinton wearing a blue dress and red heels.
In 2019, a spokesman for Bill Clinton said the former president had cut off ties more than a decade before and didn’t know about Epstein’s alleged crimes. The spokesman said then that Bill Clinton took four flights on Epstein’s plane and once visited the townhouse, each time with his Secret Service team and for reasons related to the Clinton Foundation’s work. The spokesman declined to comment for this article.
Public records show Epstein donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 campaign for the Senate, and tax records indicate he donated $25,000 in 2006 to what is now the Clinton family’s global philanthropic foundation. A spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton declined to comment.
After his conviction, Epstein maintained connections with some former members of Bill Clinton’s cabinet, including Lawrence Summers, who served as Treasury secretary, and Bill Richardson, who served as energy secretary. He also met with Clinton alumni leaving the Obama administration, including Ruemmler and the current head of the Central Intelligence Agency, William Burns.
This begs the question, was Epstein just another prong in the Democrats’ attempts to tie Trump to Russia in 2016?
No wonder they don’t want Epstein’s appt book open to the public! — TPR
The long-term consequences of Covid-19 vaccination are now being realised…
A year ago, doubly vaccinated Australians were 10.72x more likely to catch Omicron than the unvaxxed. Now they are 20x more likely, and the triply or more vaxxed are 35x more likely, as the latest NSW Health stats show (see below).
Meanwhile, the latest Cleveland Clinic Data and the latest US data analyzed by Josh Stirling, founder of Insurance Collaboration to Save Livess and former #1 ranked Insurance Analyst, shows a really, really disturbing trend.
The damage to health caused by each vaccine dose does not lessen over time. It continues indefinitely.
In fact, CDC All-Cause Mortality data show that each vaccine dose increased mortality by 7% in the year 2022 compared to the mortality in year 2021.
So if you have had 5 doses then you were 35% more likely to die in 2022 than you were in 2021. If you have had one dose then you were 7% more likely to die in 2022 than you were in 2021. If you are unvaxxed then you were no more likely to die in 2022 than you were in 2021.
The Cleveland Clinic Data
Here are the COVID-19 infection rates for the 1st 98 days from September 12, 2022, when the bivalent vaccine was first offered to Cleveland Clinic employees. It was not mandated. It was offered.
So on September 12, 2022, 6199 employees were unvaxxed, 2359 were single jabbed, 13804 were double jabbed, 20798 were triple jabbed and 3538 were quad jabbed or penta jabbed with the original vaccine, which was designed against the Wuhan Hu1 reference virus, which was NOT isolated from a Human but was generated on a computer.
The results of their study, shown graphically above, demonstrate that the more doses of the original vaccine you took, the more likely you were to catch covid. In other words the original Covid vaccine is not merely ineffective against Omicron. It is actually anti-effective.
It is therefore not a vaccine against the present strain of Covid. It is an antivaccine. It damages your immune system in a dose-dependent manner. The more shots you took, the more damage you will have done to your immune system.
The writer first saw this from PHE Vaccine Surveillance reports and published his findings to PHE themselves AND on my website and in The Expose, on 2021October10.
‘The Science’ has now been established by the Cleveland Clinic. Genetic vaccines damage your immune system and make you not less likely but more likely to be infected with Covid.
Not only that but they have horrendous side effects on the cardiovascular, neurological and reproductive systems as well.
They are nothing short of mandatory progressive euthanasia.
CDC All-Cause Mortality Data shows that every year, every vaccinated person becomes more and more likely to die at a rate of 7% PER JAB PER YEAR. That is a slow-acting genetic poison.
If people were recovering from the 1st jab, then it would not be having precisely the same effect as the 5th jab (namely a 7% increase in mortality). This is the long term problem. People are not recovering from the damage done by the shots in terms of excess mortality.
So taking 2021 as the base line, a 5 dosed person would be 350% more likely to die in 2031 and 700% more likely to die in 2041 and 1050% more likely to die in 2051 than an unvaxxed person. It is just like compound interest.
Using this result, we can calculate the loss in life expectancy for a 30 year old male as follows… The life expectancy of a 30 year old unvaxxed male in the UK is around 80 years. So he can expect another 50 years of life.
In statistical terms, half of his cohort are dead by 80. The life expectancy of a 30 year old quintuply vaxxed person in the UK is 56 years. Assuming UK males respond to the vaccines in the same way as US people. Alternatively quintuply vaxxed US 30 year old males have likewise lost 24 years of life expectancy.
UK life expectancy data is from Statista. In the table below we add the extra 7% mortality per jab per year to the 2020 UK levels shown in Column2. So in a 5 year period, the average increase in expected mortality would be –
(0% + 35%)/2 = 17.5% from one jab
(0% + 70%)/2 = 35% from two jabs
(0% + 105%)/2 = 52.5% from three jabs
(0% + 140%)/2 = 70% from four jabs
(0% + 175%)/2 = 87.5% from five jabs
Life Expectancy for unvaxxed and 1-5 dosed UK males
That is the price you pay for trusting the NHS, trusting the government, and trusting the BBC and the Main Stream Media.
That is what Media like the Expose have been trying to prevent.
NSW Vax status Jan 7, 2023
The population of New South Wales in Australia was 6,505,883 in 2022. The vaccination status is as follows…
There is proof of immune system destruction by vaccination-mediated spike proteins. We see the same pattern for Hospital admissions in Australia as we see for infection rates in Cleveland. The more shots you take, the weaker your immune system becomes. And that is for the target of the therapy! The above graphs do NOT address any of the side effects.
Conclusion
The population of NSW in Australia is 6½ million people. They are a highly vaccinated group. Looking at the Australian Government data for the last 6 weeks of 2022, we see that.
1. Those with 1 or 2 doses are 20x more likely to be admitted to hospital with Covid than those with no doses. 2. Those with 3 or 4 or more doses are 35x more likely to be admitted to hospital with Covid than those with no doses. 3. Being unvaxxed provides 100% protection from having to go to the ICU. Being vaxxed gives you a 6 in 100,000 chance of being hospitalized in the ICU. 4. Vaccines are unsafe and extremely ineffective. 5. COVID-19 vaccination is putting unsustainable pressure on hospitals and ICUs in NSW and by implication all over the world. 6. The NHS in the UK will be destroyed unless vaccinations are banned immediately. It may already be too late. 7. The vaccines prevent herd immunity. Herd immunity will never be reached in the vaxxed. It has already been reached in the unvaxxed 8. The continuation of the pandemic is entirely caused by the anti vaccines.
The last time I looked at the data in NSW, for the last six weeks of 2021, the double vaxxed were 2.18x more likely to catch Omicron than the unvaxxed.
Here we are today, 12 months later, in the last six weeks of 2022, and the double vaxxed are not 2.18x, but actually 20x more likely to catch the latest variant. And the triple jabbed are 35x more likely!
So there is the immune system destruction that I predicted in October 2021. There is the progressive vaccine-mediated AIDS. These are farcical Monty Python kinds of numbers. As I understand it, the Australian government is now going to stop classifying hospital data by vax status.
Talk about burying your head in the sand. In any event. It is too late. The cat is out of the bag. These figures are an accelerating immunological catastrophe.
The data we have analyzed are for the disease that the vaccines are supposed to be protecting us from (Covid-19). They do not address the plethora of cardiovascular, neurological, immunological, reproductive and systemic side effects of the genetic anti vaccinations, which cause further hospital admissions.
We have given control of our Health Services to big pharma, and they have destroyed those services. The day will come, if it has not already when 50% of the patients in our hospitals are suffering from vaccine-mediated pathology.
The question then becomes, how many others, in addition to the vaccine damaged, are suffering from Big Pharma-mediated pathologies resulting from other Big Pharma ‘medications’?
The credibility and the viability of all health care worldwide is, therefore, entirely dependent upon the immediate cessation of genetic vaccination.
How crazy is this? Fani says defendants have no Constitutional rights. Fani Willis stated that based on Georgia law, asking for a speedy trial or separation from the other defendants causes this.
“Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to the State’s discovery responses ten (10) days in advance of trial.”
“Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to notice of the State’s similar transaction evidence ten (10) days in advance of trial.”
“Defendants cannot now complain that they received less than seven (7) days notice of the trial date in this case.”
Lmfao! This isn’t true! It’s not how the law works.
But this really is a mask off moment.
Fulton County DA threatens to violate the rights of the defendants because she’s not prepared for trial. https://t.co/xTYtgcykHR
This article is from 2014, but very relevant today. Progressives are even worse today than they were in 1898.
Editor’s Note: In our Spring 2014 Civitas Review magazine, Civitas’ Susan Myrick looked back at a dark chapter in North Carolina history — the “White Supremacy” campaign of 1898. White progressive Democrats ran an avowedly racist campaign to remove blacks from political life. The photo on the front page of the web site is from the Wilmington race riot, the culmination of the campaign’s propaganda and incitement.
“What you do in this world is a matter of no consequence. The question is, What can you make people believe you have done?” ― Arthur Conan Doyle, A Study in Scarlet
It shouldn’t have come as a surprise in 2013 that North Carolina Democrats and self-styled progressives reacted with fury when Republicans took over the General Assembly and the governor’s office. That’s because Democrats and Progressives reacted the same way when their hold on power was threatened more than a century ago.
A little over a year ago, on February 22, 2013, the Charlotte Observer broke the story of a leaked strategy memo from leftist group Blueprint NC that described the game plan “progressive” groups should use to “eviscerate” the Republican leadership. While the memo itself was scandalous, it exposed the liberal Left’s determination to regain the power that had been lost to conservatives in the 2010 and 2012 elections. No student of North Carolina history would underestimate what the Left will do in such circumstances.
To understand this, we must look back to the late 1800s, when Democrats in the legislature controlled almost every level of government, including the state’s county commissions. The County Government Act of 1877 provided that the legislature would appoint justices of the peace, who would then select county commissioners, giving the Democrats in the legislature control of the commissions, and thus of much of the rest of local government.
By the 1890s North Carolina had two other political factions, the Republicans, including most black voters, and Populists, who attracted many poor whites. These two groups devised a plan to defeat Democrats by creating a “Fusion” movement. In 1894 the two parties agreed to challenge every Democratic candidate and in their separate conventions voted on a slate of candidates that included candidates from both the Populist and Republican parties. In 1894, Fusion candidates won a majority in the legislature and won both U.S. Senate seats. During the Fusion era, African Americans voted and held elective and appointed office throughout North Carolina in this era. The Fusion plan worked again in 1896, when the alliance retained control of the legislature and elected a Republican governor, Daniel Russell. Russell, however, would be the last Republican governor in North Carolina until James Holshouser was elected in 1973. Democrats – led by their Progressive wing – struck back in 1898 with the “White Supremacy Campaign.” The name was accurate: White supremacy was its main tactic and ultimate result.
Then as now, Progressives thought of themselves as having lofty goals for the betterment of the people. But in 1898, Tar Heel Progressives decided they could only attain their aims by playing the race card to divide and defeat the Fusion coalition. Furnifold Simmons, chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee, and Josephus Daniels, publisher of the News & Observer, were leaders of the White Supremacy Campaign. (See p. xx) The campaign stoked racial hatred, used intimidation as a weapon, and ultimately incited violence. These shameful tactics worked. The drive effectively rolled back the gains the Fusion alliance had achieved in the previous two election cycles.
The Democratic Party disenfranchised black voters and returned to its dominant role on all levels of government. The defeat weakened the Republican Party to the point that it took the GOP 112 years to gain control of both houses of the General Assembly. Yet Democrats and progressives still deny that it was their political forebears – their heroes – who acted in such a despicable way.
That’s the rub: North Carolina’s liberals/leftists must always work to distance themselves from their movement’s ugly roots: racism and bare-knuckle politics. Today’s liberals attempt to brand the White Supremacy Campaign as a conservative movement, but its leaders and members were mostly known Progressives. That’s also why today’s liberals gloss over the fact that during the era of segregation Democrats totally dominated the state.
Today’s liberals even go so far as to suggest that racists in the Democratic Party, after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed in 1964 and 1965 respectively, defected to the Republican Party. But there is no evidence to prove this assertion, in either voter registration changes or instances of prominent Democratic politicians who voted against these bills leaving the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party. For example, Democratic U.S. Sen. Sam Ervin was a segregationist who voted against both of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Yet he continues to be hailed as a hero of the liberal Left, mostly for his role in the Watergate hearings. Indeed, both of North Carolina’s U.S. Senators and all of its congressional delegation (of which there were two Republicans) voted against these two pieces of legislation. It doesn’t matter to the progressive Left that the truth is Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in much larger percentages than did Democrats, and without strong Republican support the laws would not have passed. It doesn’t matter, because they know that if you repeat a lie enough, people won’t search for the truth and the progressive media is always at the ready to repeat lies to defeat conservatives.
Perhaps that is why liberals in North Carolina consistently call their enemies racists – to deflect attention from liberalism’s own sordid history. We heard their hate-filled rhetoric during the 2013 legislative session. The leaked strategy memo gave us a peek into North Carolina’s liberal/left organizational structure and revealed their desperation to get back the power they had held for generations.
It’s hard to deny that the left enthusiastically and relentlessly executed the Blueprint NC memo’s strategic plan: “Cripple their leaders ([Gov.] McCrory, [House Speaker] Tillis, [Senate President Pro Tem] Berger etc.)” and “Eviscerate the leadership and weaken their ability to govern.” A swarm of liberal, progressive and socialist groups rallied at the legislative building every Monday (and some other days) during the legislative session to protest the new legislative majority’s work and at the same time accuse them of racism and bigotry. We are even hearing William Barber, president of the NC NAACP describe these groups as the “fusion movement”.
Today, the tide has turned in North Carolina partisan politics. In the 2010 General Election, running in districts drawn up by Democrats, Republicans won majorities in both the state House and Senate but had to battle against Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue’s 19 vetoes. In 2012 they added to their numbers and gained the majorities they needed to override a Governor’s veto, thought that could be viewed as a luxury because a Republican was elected governor. And, it was the first time four Republicans were elected to the state’s Council of State in one year.
Moreover, the North Carolina Democratic Party is in a shambles. The party’s decline can be attributed to a list of disgraced politicos and a state party embroiled in controversy, including a sexual misconduct scandal, the forced resignation of the state party’s executive director, and the failed attempt to replace the state chairman ahead of the 2012 election. More recently, the party has fired the executive director hired in May 2013 to replace the one accused of sexual harassment, and the turmoil has continued this year. Some even suggest that William Barber, president of the NC NAACP and the leader of the coalition of groups that have protested against the legislature on Mondays during the last session, is the face of and de facto head of the Democratic Party. William Barber definitely has the progressive/liberal credentials and rhetoric to be such a leader. What may be even more ominous for the liberal Left, but probably not as widely known, is who the voters of North Carolina voted for in the 2012 General Election. Using the Civitas Partisan Index model and comparing the votes for Democratic Party and Republican Party in Council of State races, we see a dramatic shift from 2008 to 2012 – more than five percentage points. In 2008, statewide, Tar Heels gave Democratic candidates 53.4 percent of the vote and 46.6 percent for Republican candidates; in the 2012 model, the average vote statewide was nearly even: 50.6 percent Democratic to 49.4 percent Republican. While it is true that historically, in Council of State races, North Carolinians tend to vote for Democratic candidates, in the 2012 CPI we see a possible shift in that voting pattern.
The liberal Left (and that always includes the mainstream media) is adept in defining the Right, whether it’s labeling the tea party as racists or charging that conservatives are waging war on women. History and the facts belie the liberal/left’s rhetoric concerning the workings and the history of the progressive movement in North Carolina. We only have to glance at history to get a clear picture of how progressives reacted when they lost power for a short time in the 19th century. It should be no surprise that they would react with such vitriol in the 21st.
Oberlin College Lacrosse Coach Under Attack by Woke Administrators for Defending Women’s Sports.
The head coach of Oberlin College’s lacrosse team says she was called “transphobic” and “unsafe,” and investigated by the woke college after questioning transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, a biological male, winning last year in the NCAA. “It is scientific that, biologically, males and females are different,” the lacrosse coach added. “I don’t believe biological males should be in women’s locker rooms. Where is the MeToo movement now? What happened to that?”
“I was blown away that a male was allowed to compete with women in NCAA swimming,” Oberlin College lacrosse coach Kim Russell said in an eight-minute video documentary shared by the Independent Women’s Forum.
Watch Below.
🆕BREAKING: Head Women’s Lacrosse Coach at Oberlin College is breaking her silence in an @IWF documentary after being “burned at the stake” for her support of single-sex sports & speaking out against allowing men in women’s sports. https://t.co/n1MPhiM4D5pic.twitter.com/WgD57sAYxR
“When Lia Thomas won, I reposted a post that said, ‘Congratulations to Emma Weyant, the real woman who won the NCAA 500-yard freestyle event.’ One of my own players took that post and sent it in an email to my athletic director,” Russell explained.
Oberlin College Women’s Lacrosse Coach Kim Russell
School administrators responded to the complaint by calling Russell into their offices for a series of disciplinary meetings, and the lacrosse coach recorded each one.
In one instance, Natalie Winkelfoos, Associate VP for Athletics, can be heard telling Russell, “Unfortunately, you fall into a category of people that are kind of filled with hate in the world.”
“It’s acceptable to have your own opinions, but when they go against, you know, Oberlin College’s beliefs, it’s a problem, for your employment,” Creg Jantz, Senior Associate Director of Athletics, told Russell in another instance.
Russell said school administrators later demanded that she write a letter of apology to the team, and to the Department of Athletics.
“I hope you feel remorse for it,” Winkelfoos said in another audio recording.
The lacrosse coach said she began to write her apology letter, but then stopped herself from doing so.
“I’m not writing a letter of apology, I’m not sorry,” Russell said in the documentary. “I really believe that women should be competing against other biological females.”
Russell, who has been coaching for 27 years, said she was then told that she had to attend a meeting with her entire team, the athletic director, the Title IX director for the Athletics Department, the head of the department’s Diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I.) office, and the Title IX and director of D.E.I. for the entire college.
“There was a very dark energy,” Russell explained of the meeting. “Chairs were set up in a huge circle, I felt like I was burned at the stake.”
“It was, what I would call the ‘mob mentality,’ where a few people on the team spoke about how much they were upset with what I had posted, and how dare I post that,” the coach said. “I love these kids, and to have many of them say all these things that, to me, were attacking who I was as a person, it made me sad.”
The documentary also featured several audio clips of student lacrosse players lecturing Russell.
“Everyone has their views,” one student said. “But what the focus should be here isn’t what the view is, it should be the impact that that caused, the impact that that post had,” one student could be heard preaching in an audio clip.
“I still feel like we’re just kind of, like, justifying your actions a little, instead of, like, a true apology,” another student lectured. “Especially at Oberlin, where there is such a high, like, LGBTQ+ population, I just feel like I would like a little more accountability.”
“It’s not good enough just to work for, like, women’s issues or white feminism, you know? It has to, like, your feminism, has to be inclusive for everybody,” another said.
During the meeting, Russell felt that nobody was really listening to what she had to say. After that, when the season was finished, Russell was called in for yet another meeting, where she was given a letter that informed her she had damaged her credibility and would need to change her behavior immediately.
“I believe that there are so many people who are afraid of losing their jobs that they are just going to do what they have to do to keep working,” Russell said in the documentary. “It is my job to be a voice for everyone who is too afraid, who needs to keep their job.”
“It is scientific that, biologically, males and females are different,” the lacrosse coach added. “I don’t believe biological males should be in women’s locker rooms. Where is the MeToo movement now? What happened to that?”
“Do I believe I’m at risk of being fired, of having a storm hit me?” Russell said. “Yes. Am I ready for the storm? Yes.”
Russell is not the first person Oberlin College has attacked.
As Breitbart News previously reported, the leftist school had to pay $36.59 million in court-ordered defamation damages to a mom-and-pop bakery it slandered as racist — after previously fighting desperately to avoid paying the judgment.
In 2019, Meredith Raimondo, now an ex-dean, had orchestrated a woke mob into slandering the family that runs Gibson’s Bakery as racists for calling the police on three black students for allegedly shoplifting a bottle of wine.
Judge’s order in Mark Meadows case “could be very bad news” for Fani Willis.
By Areeba Shah.
U.S. District Court Judge Steve Jones on Tuesday ordered Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and former president Donald Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows to offer opinions on a key matter essential to addressing Meadows’s argument that his Georgia prosecution should be tried in federal court.
Jones asked both parties to provide their views on whether “a finding that at least one (but not all) of the overt acts charged occurred under the color of Meadow’s office [would] be sufficient for federal removal of a criminal prosecution under [the federal removal statute].”
When Meadows took the stand on Tuesday, he argued he was acting in his capacity as Trump’s top White House aide when he reached out to Georgia officials following the 2020 elections. Fulton County prosecutors, on the other hand, asserted that Meadows’ actions went well beyond the responsibilities of his federal position.
Meadows was charged in Willis’ sprawling racketeering indictment, which accuses him and 17 others of conspiring to subvert the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.
In court documents, his legal team has already revealed their plans to seek the dismissal of the charges from a federal judge if the case is transferred to federal court, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Even if a judge doesn’t dismiss the charges, the shift to federal court would provide Meadows with a broader and potentially more conservative pool of jurors and bar cameras from entering the courtroom.
The pivotal point of contention for the removal hinges mainly on whether Meadows can prove that he was indicted for actions he carried out in his capacity as a federal official.
Clark Cunningham, professor of law at Georgia State University, also weighed in on X, formerly Twitter, arguing that this order “could be very bad news” for Willis.
“If I were the DA, I would ask grand jury for a superseding indictment that removes the name of Mark Meadows from Acts 5, 6, 7, and 19 of Count 1 (but continuing the allegations as to Donald Trump),” he wrote.
The first three alleged overt acts by Meadows (Acts 5, 6 and 7) are not necessary to establish his liability under RICO, but keeping them in the indictment now runs an “enormous risk” for the DA of losing the removal issue, in light of Judge Jones’ order, since these overt acts come closest to meeting the test for federal officer removal, he added.
Cunningham explained that Acts 5 and 7 involve White House meetings between Trump and state legislators, for which Meadows made “plausible claims” on the witness stand that his role was limited to what the Chief of Staff typically does. Act 6 alleges only that Meadows asked a member of Congress from Pennsylvania for the phone numbers of the leaders of the state legislature in Pennsylvania, again saying this was a typical task for a chief of staff.
“Act 19 alleges that Trump & Meadows met together with another White House staffer, John McEntee and asked him to prepare a memo for a strategy to disrupt the January 6 session of Congress,” Cunningham wrote. “Meadows testified firmly that Act 19 did not describe anything he had done and it is not worth continuing to try and prosecute Meadows for Act 19.”
Jones ordered that Willis and attorneys for Meadows file their briefs by 5 p.m. on Thursday.
President Joe Biden made a false claim on Monday when he said that he “literally” convinced former Dixiecrat Sen. Strom Thurmond (SC) to vote for the Civil Rights Act.
The president made his outlandish claim while speaking on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the civil rights legal group, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
“Pause for just a moment. I thought things had changed. I was able to literally, not figuratively, talk Strom Thurmond into voting for the Civil Rights Act before he died, and I thought, ‘Well maybe there’s real progress,’ But hate never dies. It just hides, it hides under the rocks,” he said.
Strom Thurmond, who switched to the Republican Party after years as a Democrat, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 before Joe Biden had entered politics, being that he was just 21 years old at the time. Strom Thurmond also died in 2003, many decades after the passing of civil rights.
Thurmond not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he also holds the record for the longest-ever filibuster opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
According to Fox News, a White House spokesperson later said the president was “instrumental in getting Thurmond’s vote for the Voting Rights Act, in 1980.”
Whatever the president meant, it represents yet another serious gaffe in his long string of serious gaffes. For instance, he has often publicly said that his son Beau died in Iraq even though he died of brain cancer after having previously served in Iraq. As Breitbart News reported, the president made a similar claim in 2022 while giving a speech in Colorado to designate Camp Hale as a national monument. He had been discussing the many sacrifices that soldiers make before citing his son Beau as an example.
“I say this as a father of a man who won the Bronze Star, the conspicuous service medal, and lost his life in Iraq,” Biden said.
The following month, the president once again claimed that Iraq was “where my son died.”
In May of this year, the president used the backdrop of a conversation with U.S. servicemen to once again falsely claim Beau died in the Iraq War. The president reportedly made his claim during a visit with troops at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in Japan.
“My son was a major in the U.S. Army. We lost him in Iraq,” he reportedly said.
According to the New York Post, the traveling press corps were “kept far enough away that the remarks were inaudible.”
“The White House press office did not put out an official transcript, almost allowing the error to escape public notice,” according to the Post.
In late September 2022, the president appeared to call out for now-deceased Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN) when giving a speech at a White House event.
“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” Biden asked.
“I didn’t think she was going to be here,” he added.
Never forget. The killing of 13 American Military Personal at the hands of the Biden Administration. It’s been two years now that 13 American soldiers and almost 200 civilians died because of Joe Biden.
Remember that the suicide bomber was released from Bagram Air Base prison. If we had not abandoned that airbase the deaths would not have happened. And how about the testimony from our sniper?
Sgt. Tyler Vargas-Andrews, a U.S. Marine Corps sniper who served in Afghanistan during the surrender to the Taliban forces, testified before Congress earlier this year. Vargas told Congress that he was denied permission to shoot the suicide bomber in Afghanistan.
Over the communication network we passed that there was a potential threat and an ID attack imminent. This was as serious as it could get. I requested engagement authority while my team leader was ready on the M110 semiautomatic sniper system. The response: Leadership did not have the engagement authority for us. Do not engage. I requested for the battalion commander, lieutenant Colonel Brad Whited, to come to the tower to see what we did. Wile we waited for him psychological operations individuals came to our tower immediately and confirmed the suspect met the suicide bomber description.
He eventually arrived, and we showed him our evidence, the photos we had of the two men. We reassured him of the ease of fire on the suicide bomber. Pointedly, we asked him for engagement authority and permission. We asked him if we could shoot. Our battalion commander said, and I quote, “I don’t know,” end quote. Myself and my team leader asked very harshly, “Well, who does? Because this is your responsibility, sir.”
He again replied he did not know, but would find out. We received no update and never got our answer. Eventually, the individual disappeared. To this day, we believe he was a suicide bomber. We made everyone on the ground aware operations had briefly halted, but then started again. Plain and simple, we were ignored. Our expertise was disregarded. No one was held accountable for our safety.
The Ontario College of Psychologists has ordered professor Dr. Jordan Peterson to undergo a “reeducation training program” because of his social media posts.
The statements Peterson made on social media did not relate to the practice of psychology but rather his opinions on gender ideology, the medical mistreatment of minors with regards to trans surgery, climate hysteria and criticizing Canadian Prime Minister Justing Trudeau.
The complaints were made by members of the public, not by any individuals who Dr. Peterson has ever treated.
Before the verdict, Peterson said, “The decision of an Ontario court re the allegations levied against me by @CPOntario is due tomorrow. I stand by what I have said and done and wish them luck in their continued prosecution. They’re going to need it. I tweeted and otherwise expressed my opposition to trans surgery butchery, @JustinTrudeau and his minions, and the lying climate apocalypse-mongers. All that’s looking pretty good from my end. And if I can’t express such opinions in Canada, I will let the world know.”
The decision of an Ontario court re the allegations levied against me by @CPOntario is due tomorrow.
I stand by what I have said and done and wish them luck in their continued prosecution.
They're going to need it.
I tweeted and otherwise expressed my opposition to trans…
It seems non-patient complaints — and NO patient complaints — are enough to lynch a Best-Selling Author | Clinical Psychologist | #1 Education Podcast creator
Although Peterson applied for a judicial review, saying the professional body had no say in his personal online commentary, the application was dismissed by The Ontario Divisional Court. CBC reports that the ruling asserts that “the college’s decision falls within its mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest and does not affect his freedom of expression.”
Peterson told CBC News, “I’ll comply with their regulations, but I’m not going to do it in secret… And the reason I’m not going to do it in secret is because I don’t believe I’ve done anything wrong.”
The cost of the “reeducation” would be on Peterson to pay, and these “consultants” charge an hourly rate of $225 PER HOUR.
The College required in January that Peterson “…work with either Dr. Erika Abner, LLM, LLB, Ph.D, or Gail Siskind, RN, MA, to review, reflect on, and ameliorate [his] professionalism in public statements,”and to “complete the Coaching Program within six months of receiving the ICRC Decision in this matter.” The cost would be on Peterson to pay, and these consultants charge an hourly rate of $225 per hour. The program could be extended at the discretion of the coach if Peterson’s progress was not to their liking.
Peterson would like to keep his professional licensing in Ontario, stating “I deserve it. I earned it. I haven’t done anything to justify suspending it, and I don’t want to give the hyenas their bones.” He refused to comply with the demand that he undergo this reeducation.
To clarify: it's been decided: I either submit to social media communication retraining or face a disciplinary hearing and possible suspension of my clinical license and the right to represent myself as a psychologist @elonmusk@CPOntariohttps://t.co/qmsje8flyN
I have been accused of harming people (although none of the complainants involved in the current action were clients of mone, past or present, or en were even acquainted with any of my clients.
An online petition has been organized calling on the Ontario College of Psychologists to rescind their unreasonable, undemocratic, and punitive decision to sentence Dr. Jordan Peterson to mandatory “re-education.”