Categories
Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Public Service Announcement Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Looking. Dershowitz to Newsmax: 65 Project Un-American for Targeting Trump Lawyers.

Looking. Dershowitz to Newsmax: 65 Project Un-American for Targeting Trump Lawyers.

Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax on Thursday that the 65 Project, a primarily left-leaning group of lawyers that is trying to intimidate lawyers representing former President Donald Trump in post-2020 election litigation or challenging those election results, “the most un-American group of people I have encountered in all my years of practicing law.”

David Brock, founder of Media Matters for America and a senior adviser to the group, told Axios in March 2022 the group’s method of intimidation is to “not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms.”

Such a move could violate the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a right to “assistance of counsel for his defense.” There is a presumption the amendment provides defendants the right to retain counsel of their choice, although it is not absolute. Such intimidation by the 65 Project could thwart that right, according to Dershowitz.

“These are lawyers who ought to be themselves subject to bar association discipline,” Dershowitz, who was part of Trump’s legal team for his first impeachment, told “Carl Higbie FRONTLINE.

Dershowitz said after he pledged to defend any lawyer pro bono who was targeted by the 65 Project for defending Trump or anyone in his circle, the group filed a complaint with the bar association in Massachusetts, where he lives. He said so far, nothing has come of it.

“I’ve now spoken to three lawyers who were asked to defend either Donald Trump or his co-defendants, and they all are reluctant to do it largely because of Project 65,” Dershowitz said. “This is McCarthyism, the worst form of McCarthyism. It violates the code of professional responsibility. And in numerous ways, it puts the profession in a bad light.”

Dershowitz said every American is at risk when there is a group of “distinguished lawyers, members of the bar, elite members of the bar, members of law firms, people who have held high office in bar associations, essentially threatening lawyers, threatening their careers, threatening their friendships if they continue to represent people this group doesn’t like.”

“It is the worst abuse of the legal profession I’ve seen in 60 years of practicing law, and this is one lawyer who’s fighting back,” he said.

Said Eddie Vale, communications director for the 65 Project, in an email to Newsmax: “Talk is cheap and if Mr. Dershowitz actually believes it he is more than welcome to file a complaint that we would be glad to litigate in addition to ours against him.”

Categories
Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Looking. MTG, Stefanik Try to Expunge Both Trump Impeachments.

Looking. MTG, Stefanik Try to Expunge Both Trump Impeachments.

Thanks Newsmax.

Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., are moving to expunge both the first and second impeachments of former President Donald Trump, respectively.

Greene’s resolution seeks to expunge Trump’s first impeachment, which came from an accusation that he had attempted to coerce Ukraine into announcing an investigation into the Biden family. It points to a recently revealed FD-1023, which includes confidential human source information accusing both Joe and Hunter Biden of being involved in an alleged bribery scheme, wherein a Ukrainian businessperson paid $5 million to Hunter Biden and another $5 million to Joe Biden in exchange for getting a prosecutor investigating his company fired.

“Resolved, That the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President Donald John Trump is expunged, as if such Articles had never passed the full House of Representatives, as the facts and circumstances upon which such Articles were based did not meet the burden of proving the commission of ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’, as set forth in section 4 of article II of the Constitution,” the resolution reads.

In a statement, Greene said, “The first impeachment of President Trump was a politically motivated sham. The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, weaponized a perfect phone call with Ukraine to interfere with the 2020 election. Meanwhile, the FBI had credible evidence of Joe and Hunter Biden’s corrupt dealings, confirming their involvement in a foreign bribery pay-to-play scheme and receipt of over $5 million each. All of this information was revealed to Congress by the FD-1023 form from the FBI’s most credible informant. The form vindicates President Trump and exposes the crimes of the Biden family. It’s clear that President Trump’s impeachment was nothing more than a witch hunt that needs to be expunged from our history. I’m proud to work with Chairwoman Elise Stefanik on our joint resolutions to correct the record and clear President Trump’s good name.”

Stefanik’s resolution seeks to expunge the second impeachment, which was related to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. It reads, “Resolved, That the January 13, 2021, impeachment of President Donald John Trump is expunged, as if such Article had never passed the full House of Representatives, as the facts and circumstances upon which such Article was based met the burden of proving neither that President Trump committed ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’, as set forth in section 4 of article II of the Constitution, nor that President Trump engaged in ‘insurrection or rebellion against the United States’, such that he is forever precluded from ‘hold[ing] any office … under the United States’ pursuant to section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”

Stefanik released a statement saying, “The American people know Democrats weaponized the power of impeachment against President Donald Trump to advance their own extreme political agenda. From the beginning of this sham process, I stood up against Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff’s blatant attempt to shred the Constitution as House Democrats ignored the Constitution and failed to follow the legislative process. President Donald Trump was rightfully acquitted, and it is past time to expunge Democrats’ sham smear against not only President Trump’s name, but against millions of patriots across the country.”

Below are links to two other stories that would be related to this one. If Trump does end up winning in 2024 and if the Democrats do take the House, they will try a third time to Impeach Trump. Hate is part of the lefts playbook. So hang on cause the next elections will be historic.

© 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved

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

Looking. The Biden Investigation interfered with constantly.

Looking. The Biden Investigation interfered with constantly. I’ve decided to post three different articles on the same Biden scandal. Fox goes first.

Hunter Biden investigators limited questions about ‘dad,’ ‘big guy’ despite FBI, IRS objections: whistleblower

IRS decisions ‘at every stage’ of probe ‘had the effect of benefiting the subject of the investigation,’ a whistleblower said.

Justice Department investigators were “trying to limit” questioning related to President Biden as part of the investigation into Hunter Biden, despite objections from FBI and IRS officials, a whistleblower alleged.

The House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday released testimony from two IRS whistleblowers who said officials at the Justice Department, FBI and IRS interfered with the investigation of the tax evasion case against Hunter Biden. The whistleblowers said decisions in the case seemed to be “influenced by politics.”

One whistleblower, Gary Shapley Jr., who was the supervisor of the investigation at the IRS, said that “at every stage” of the probe, decisions were made that “had the effect of benefiting the subject of the investigation.” He cited several examples involving apparent references to Hunter Biden’s father.

Shapley pointed to text messages and emails obtained from Hunter Biden’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski, which Fox News Digital first reported before the 2020 presidential election and before it was known that Hunter was under federal investigation.

 

Hunter Biden gets off plane with president

President Biden has snapped at reporters who have asked him about alleged corruption involving him and his son, Hunter Biden. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

In December 2020, Shapley said investigators were preparing to interview Biden business associate Rob Walker.

“Among other things, we wanted to question Walker about an email that said: ‘Ten held by H for the big guy,’” Shapley said. “We had obvious questions like who was H, who the big guy was, and why this percentage was to be held separately with the association hidden.”

But Shapley said Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf “interjected and said she did not want to ask about the big guy and stated she did not want to ask questions about ‘dad.’”

It has been reported that Joe Biden is referred to as “the big guy.”

“When multiple people in the room spoke up and objected that we had to ask, she responded, there’s no specific criminality to that line of questioning,” Shapley said. “This upset the FBI, too.”

Shapley said that “basically everyone in the room except for the prosecutors had a big problem with” not asking questions about President Biden.

The “Ten held by H for the big guy” message is an email from May 13, 2017, which included a discussion of “remuneration packages” for six people in a business deal with a Chinese energy firm. The email appeared to identify Biden as “Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC,” in an apparent reference to now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co.

 

Joe and Hunter Biden

President Biden, left, and Hunter Biden (Getty Images)

The email includes a note that “Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.” A proposed equity split references “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” with no further details.

Shapley said that on Oct. 22, 2020, the team and Wolf stated that U.S. Attorney David Weiss had “reviewed the affidavit for search warrant of Hunter Biden’s residence and agreed that probable cause had been achieved.”

“Even though the legal requirements were met, and the investigative team knew evidence would be in these locations, AUSA Wolf stated that they would not allow a physical search warrant on Hunter Biden,” Shapley said.

Shapley said IRS and FBI agents conducting the Walker interview “tried to skirt AUSA Wolf’s direction” to avoid questions on “dad” and “the big guy.”

“And they were like, ‘How can we not ask?’ Like, that was wrong. We got to ask. We got to ask,” Shapley said. “And so they basically decided that they would ask the question without saying the words ‘big guy,’ and that then they would somehow be doing what they were asked to do.”

Shapley repeatedly testified that there were “multiple times where Lesley Wolf said that she didn’t want to ask questions about dad.”

“And dad was kind of how we referred to him,” Shapley said. “We referred to Hunter Biden’s father, you know, as dad.”

 

Shapley said Joe Biden was referred to in that way “so that we could speak more openly without yelling, ‘President Biden.’”

He also discussed an instance in December 2020 when Hunter Biden vacated the Washington, D.C., office of his Owasco firm and put all of his documents into a storage unit in northern Virginia.

“The IRS prepared an affidavit in support of a search warrant for the unit, but AUSA Wolf once again objected,” Shapley said.

According to Shapley, Weiss was leading the investigation into Hunter Biden and agreed that if the storage unit wasn’t accessed for 30 days, “we could execute a search warrant on it.”

“No sooner had we gotten off the call then we heard AUSA Wolf had simply reached out to Hunter Biden’s defense counsel and told him about the storage unit, once again ruining our chances to get evidence before being destroyed, manipulated, or concealed,” Shapley said.

He also said a message in which Hunter Biden refers to his father in a message to Chinese energy company CEFC executive Henry Zhao made it clear a search of the guesthouse at the Bidens’ Delaware home was needed. But he said Wolf said that the “optics were a driving factor in the decision on whether to execute a search warrant.”

These revelations come just days after the Justice Department announced that Hunter Biden will plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax as part of a deal that is expected to keep him out of prison. The president’s son also agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion agreement with regard to a separate charge of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.

 

In response to the whistleblower allegations, the Justice Department said in a statement: “As both the Attorney General and U.S. Attorney David Weiss have said, U.S. Attorney Weiss has full authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges as he deems appropriate. He needs no further approval to do so. Questions about his investigation should be directed to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Delaware.”

The White House has repeatedly said President Biden has never been involved in his son’s business dealings. They also maintain the president never discussed them with him.

Categories
Corruption Links from other news sources. Public Service Announcement Reprints from others.

Winning. Schiff is Censured. Now we go to the House Ethics Committee.

Winning. Schiff is Censured. Now we go to the House Ethics Committee.

The House voted on party lines Wednesday to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) as a formal condemnation for Schiff’s outspoken promotion of allegations that former President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election.

The vote passed 213 to 209. Six voted present, including five Republicans on the House Ethics Committee, who are now required to probe Schiff as part of the resolution, and Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO).

Democrats, who unanimously opposed the vote, could be seen rallying around Schiff at the conclusion of it, chanting “Shame! Shame!” and “Disgrace!” at House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) as the speaker stood up to read the resolution.

“I have all night,” McCarthy said in response to the disruptions.

Censures are rare and serve as the highest form of punishment in Congress outside of an expulsion. Only two other members have been censured in the last nearly four decades, including, most recently, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) for sharing a cartoon of himself killing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

 

 

The resolution against Schiff stated that while he was serving as the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he “spread false accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.”

Schiff also “perpetuated false allegations from the Steele Dossier accusing numerous Trump associates of colluding with Russia into the Congressional Record.”

The resolution required Schiff to present himself in the well of the House floor while McCarthy read the resolution and for the Ethics Committee to conduct an investigation into Schiff’s “falsehoods, misrepresentations, and abuses of sensitive information.”

Schiff notoriously claimed while in his position of authority on Intel that “clear evidence” that Trump colluded with the Russians existed in “plain sight,” despite multiple federal investigations ultimately concluding that there was no sufficient evidence of the alleged collusion.

McCarthy removed Schiff from his position on Intel this year because of the same reasons cited in the censure resolution.

 

 

Schiff has never retracted his claims and said on the House floor prior to the vote that he would wear the censure as a “badge of honor.”

He said:

I wear this partisan vote as a badge of honor, knowing that I have lived my oath, knowing that I have done my duty to hold a dangerous and out of control president accountable, and knowing that I would do so again in a heartbeat if the circumstances should ever require it.

The resolution was led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who initially included a $16 million fine against Schiff, which she said would compensate for a portion of what American taxpayers ultimately paid for the Trump-Russia federal probes. Several Republicans opposed the fine though, including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who said it was unconstitutional, leading Luna to excise that provision.

Several Republicans celebrated the passage of the resolution in statements on social media:

Schiff, who is running for the open Senate seat in California in 2024, has been fundraising off the disciplinary action against him, sending what Insider found to be at least 20 fundraising emails, in addition to social media posts soliciting donations.

Ashley Oliver wrote this article.

Categories
Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts

Justice Alito responds to Pro Publica personal attacks.

Editor’s note: Justin Elliott and Josh Kaplan of ProPublica, which styles itself “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force,” emailed Justice Alito Friday with a series of questions and asked him to respond by noon EDT Tuesday. They informed the justice that “we do serious, fair, accurate reporting in the public interest and have won six Pulitzer Prizes.” Here is Justice Alito’s response:

ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid.

• Recusal. I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites. First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate. ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect. “There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties” (Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices appended to letter from the Chief Justice to Senator Durbin, April 25, 2023). No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard. My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court. On two occasions, he introduced me before I gave a speech—as have dozens of other people. And as I will discuss, he allowed me to occupy what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska. It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially.

Second, when I reviewed the cases in question to determine whether I was required to recuse, I was not aware and had no good reason to be aware that Mr. Singer had an interest in any party. During my time on the Court, I have voted on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions. The vast majority receive little personal attention from the justices because even a cursory examination reveals that they do not meet our requirements for review. See Sup. Ct. R. 10. To ensure that I am not required to recuse, multiple members of my staff carefully check the names of the parties in each case and any other entities listed in the corporate disclosure statement required by our rules. See Supreme Court Rule 29.6. Mr. Singer was not listed as a party in any of the cases listed by ProPublica. Nor did his name appear in any of the corporate disclosure statements or the certiorari petitions or briefs in opposition to certiorari. In the one case in which review was granted, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., No. 12-842, Mr. Singer’s name did not appear in either the certiorari petition, the brief in opposition, or the merits briefs. Because his name did not appear in these filings, I was unaware of his connection with any of the listed entities, and I had no good reason to be aware of that. The entities that ProPublica claims are connected to Mr. Singer all appear to be either limited liability corporations or limited liability partnerships. It would be utterly impossible for my staff or any other Supreme Court employees to search filings with the SEC or other government bodies to find the names of all individuals with a financial interest in every such entity named as a party in the thousands of cases that are brought to us each year.

• Reporting. Until a few months ago, the instructions for completing a Financial Disclosure Report told judges that “[p]ersonal hospitality need not be reported,” and “hospitality” was defined to include “hospitality extended for a non-business purpose by one, not a corporation or organization, . . . on property or facilities owned by [a] person . . .” Section 109(14). The term “facilities” was not defined, but both in ordinary and legal usage, the term encompasses means of transportation. See, e.g., Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 690 (2001) (defining a “facility” as “something designed, built, installed, etc., to serve a specific function affording a convenience or service: transportation facilities” and “something that permits the easier performance of an action”). Legal usage is similar. Black’s Law Dictionary has explained that the term “facilities” may mean “everything necessary for the convenience of passengers.” Federal statutory law is similar. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C §1958(b) (“ ‘facility of interstate commerce’ includes means of transportation”); 18 U.S.C §2251(a) (referring to an item that has been “transported using any means or facility of interstate commerce”); Kevin F. O’Malley, Jay E. Grenig, Hon. William C. Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions §54.04 (February 2023) (“the term ‘uses any facility in interstate commerce’ means employing or utilizing any method of . . . transportation between one state and another”).

This understanding of the requirement to report gifts reflected the expert judgment of the body that the Ethics in Government Act entrusts with the responsibility to administer compliance with the Act, see 5 U.S.C. App. §111(3). When I joined the Court and until the recent amendment of the filing instructions, justices commonly interpreted this discussion of “hospitality” to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts. The flight to Alaska was the only occasion when I have accepted transportation for a purely social event, and in doing so I followed what I understood to be standard practice.

For these reasons, I did not include on my Financial Disclosure Report for 2008 either the accommodations provided by the owner of the King Salmon Lodge, who, to my knowledge, has never been involved in any matter before the Court, or the seat on the flight to Alaska.

In brief, the relevant facts relating to the fishing trip 15 years ago are as follows. I stayed for three nights in a modest one-room unit at the King Salmon Lodge, which was a comfortable but rustic facility. As I recall, the meals were homestyle fare. I cannot recall whether the group at the lodge, about 20 people, was served wine, but if there was wine it was certainly not wine that costs $1,000. Since my visit 15 years ago, the lodge has been sold and, I believe, renovated, but an examination of the photos and information on the lodge’s website shows that ProPublica’s portrayal is misleading.

As for the flight, Mr. Singer and others had already made arrangements to fly to Alaska when I was invited shortly before the event, and I was asked whether I would like to fly there in a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant. It was my understanding that this would not impose any extra cost on Mr. Singer. Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me.

Justice Alito is an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Categories
Opinion Reprints from others. WOKE

Good for them! Texas Rangers only team not to hold ‘Pride Night’

Don’t mess with Texas!

“People just want to watch baseball.”

The Texas Rangers are the only team in Major League Baseball to not hold a Pride Night, which has led some employees and former employees to direct criticism at the team and its ownership.

[Oh, boo hoo! Find your safe space and STFU! — TPR]

The Rangers will host a Choctaw Casinos & Resorts night, a Harry Potter night, and community nights such as Abilene Christian University day and Vegan day, that are advertised as a “chance to experience Globe Life Field with others who share a common interest.”

However, they will not hold a Pride Night unlike all the other teams in the league, a “tradition” that MLB teams adopted in 2001 beginning with the Chicago Cubs.

In 2003, the Rangers attempted to host a Pride Night, and had invited several LGBT groups to celebrate at the stadium. However, after Rangers fans had expressed concerns and did not support the idea, the team decided to cancel future celebrations.

A former employee, speaking under anonymity, criticized the team for their decision saying that not holding pride festivities has always been something that bothered the employee.

“(The silence) is deafening,” the employee said. “The fact of the matter is it’s a free marketing opportunity, it doesn’t cost them anything personally and they can boost revenue by looking inclusive. The fact that there hasn’t been one (for Texas), is the biggest ‘actions speak louder than words’ I’ve ever seen. The fact that there’s so much resistance is a huge point of contention, not just for the gay folks, but for everyone. It was always something that bothered me greatly about the organization. They do a lot of things well, where they have all these other nights for different fans and cultures. The fact that they omit one group very clearly is just ridiculous.”

Another employee blamed the ownership of the team.

“When you have someone so opposed at the top,” the employee said. “It creates this spillover effect that, even though most of the organization I think wants it to happen, or at least isn’t vehemently opposed to it, it’s just this dark cloud that’s signifying it’s OK to treat this group of people like s—.”

The team released a statement over the weekend in response to the criticism they have received.

“Our commitment is to make everyone feel welcome and included in Rangers baseball,” the statement read. “That means in our ballpark, at every game, and in all we do – for both our fans and our employees. We deliver on that promise across our many programs to have a positive impact across our entire community.”

In contrast, the Los Angeles Dodgers had held their Pride Night and had invited a group called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, in order to honor them. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are “a queer and trans group that uses religious imagery and mocks Catholicism to call attention to sexual intolerance,” according to the New York Post.

The events by the Dodgers were met with protests.

On Friday, protestors filled the streets surrounding the Dodgers stadium as the team conducted their festivities. They refused to enter the stadium while the group was being honored.

Categories
Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Looking. UK worker fired over Facebook posts criticizing transgenderism, sex education in primary schools wins appeal

 

Looking. A U.K. woman fired for speaking out against transgender and sex education lessons taught at her son’s Church of England primary school won an appeal Friday after a judge overturned a previous ruling upholding her dismissal.

Kristie Higgs said she was initially fired from her role as a teaching assistant at the Farmor’s School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, England, after an anonymous person noticed her Facebook posts speaking out against her son’s school’s plan to introduce books containing transgender ideology and reported the posts to the head teacher.

Though the school says otherwise, she maintains the firing was an attack on her Christian faith.

UK CHURCH SCHOOL WORKER FIGHTS FIRING OVER FACEBOOK POST OBJECTING TO GRADE-SCHOOL TRANSGENDER LESSONS

Portrait of Kristie Higgs

Kristie Higgs, a Christian mother of two, was fired from her position as a pastoral assistant at the Farmor’s School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, England in 2019 after raising concerns on her private Facebook page about sex education for children. (Christian Concern)

“From the beginning, despite the many attempts by the school to suggest otherwise, this has always been about my Christian beliefs and me being discriminated against for expressing them in my own time,” she said, according to BBC News.

Higgs also gathered signatures from her family members and friends, challenging plans to implement the curriculum by sharing an online petition on Facebook.

The post read in part, “THEY ARE BRAINWASHING OUR CHILDREN!” adding that, with the new curriculum in place, “Children will be taught that all relationships are equally valid and ‘normal’, so that same-sex marriage is exactly the same as traditional marriage, and that gender is a matter of choice, not biology, so that it’s up to them what sex they are.”

PARENTS PULL 4-YEAR-OLD FROM CHURCH SCHOOL FOR PROMOTING ‘GENDER IDENTITY’ LESSONS: ‘CRUEL DECEPTION’

Kristie Higgs facebook post

Kristie Higgs lost her job as a pastoral assistant at a Church of England primary school after an anonymous person complained about her Facebook post. (Christian Concern)

President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London Jennifer Eady ruled in Higgs’ favor Friday, arguing that “the freedom to manifest belief (religious or otherwise) and to express views relating to that belief are essential rights in any democracy.”

She added that the right to manifest the beliefs, no matter who they might offend, is protected without limits.

Eady previously dismissed two members of the appeal panel for perceived bias, particularly two who had historically advocated for LGBTQ rights.

Higg’s appeal came after an employment tribunal ruled in October 2020 that she did not suffer discrimination or harassment due to the firing.

 

pro-transgender march

A protester voices support for the promotion of transgender ideology in schools during a pro-transgender march in October 2022. (Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images)

According to the BBC, Higgs’ case will now head back for a fresh tribunal.

“I am pleased that the courts have overturned the previous judgment, but I am frustrated by the further delays to receiving justice,” she said of the decision.

“I was, and still am, appalled by the sexual ideology that was being introduced to my son’s Church of England primary school… Since I lost the job I loved, there has been so many disturbing revelations about transgender ideology in schools and children being taught inappropriate sex education. I feel so justified and vindicated for sharing and expressing the concerns that I did.”

Hopefully the school drops this and allows this person back. If not, then it’s back to the next court. Is this what the school wants? Let’s stay on top of this.

SMH

 

Fox News’ Jon Brown contributed to this report.

Categories
Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Majority of Registered Voters Believe Trump Indictment is Election Interference, According to Harvard Poll

Majority of Registered Voters Believe Trump Indictment is Election Interference, According to Harvard Poll

Thanks to the Harvard Harris Poll and  GP for this great article.

According to a new Harvard poll, most registered voters believe that the indictment of former President Donald Trump was politically motivated and election interference. Additionally, the poll found that 57 percent of registered voters believe that Trump will be acquitted.

The survey found that 55 percent of Americans say Trump’s indictment is politically motivated, including 83 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Independents.

Additionally, 56 percent of voters across the political spectrum consider Trump’s federal indictment to be an interference by the Justice Department in the 2024 Election. Only 44 percent of those polled said the indictment was “the fair application of the law.”

The pollsters also questioned voters about Joe Biden’s similarly mishandled documents and Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.

“A majority of 65 percent of respondents believe Biden ‘mishandled’ classified material, while 72 percent think Clinton did, with 69 percent saying she ‘obstructed justice’ by acid-washing her emails,” Breitbart News reports.

The pollsters asked voters, “Do you think indicting a former president for taking classified documents after leaving office, something done by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and other senior officials, is a fair application justice or selective prosecution?”

A 53 percent majority responded that going after Trump is a “selective prosecution.”

 

Categories
Corruption COVID Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Medicine Reprints from others. Science

Looking. Testimony of Lies: CDC Director Rochelle Walensky Perjured Herself Twice Before Congress

 

Originally Published on DailyClout.io

“Dr. Walensky seemed less cool in this appearance for Congress. This is the least composed and the most nervous, I feel, like I’ve seen this woman who’s usually kind of cool as a cucumber,” noted conservative podcaster Emerald Robinson Thursday. She also “perjured herself twice,” expressed special guest and DailyClout CEO Dr. Naomi Wolf.

The soon-to-be former CDC Director (June 30), Rochelle Walensky, testified before Congress for two hours on Tuesday. Here are some of the “key takeaways,” as provided by the Committee on Oversight and Accountability:

Key Takeaways

• CDC Director Walensky confirmed that the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) promoted prolonged school closures that harmed America’s children.

• When America faced a public health crisis and turned to the CDC for help and guidance, the CDC provided misguided, unscientific, confusing, and at times blatantly false answers.

• AFT President Randi Weingarten had a direct line to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky’s personal and professional cellphones — raising further questions about potential political influence at the CDC.

• Dr. Rochelle Walensky testified that she spoke in her capacity as CDC Director during a White House briefing in February 2021. The Biden White House’s claim that her statements were made in her “personal” capacity when discussing school reopenings and vaccinations for teachers was false.

• Public health officials and organizations — including the CDC — must be held accountable for their failures and false statements during the pandemic in order to earn back the trust of Americans.

• The CDC needs structural reform to address current information and infrastructure issues, lack of transparency within the agency, and processes surrounding guidance publication.

One moment that garnered a lot of attention was Dr. Walensky’s exchange with Rep. James Comer (R-KY).

Rep. Comer asked Dr. Walensky several times about the CDC’s role in pressuring social media companies like Facebook, now Meta, to censor opinions that ran contrary to the CDC’s, to which Dr. Walensky continually answered, “That topic is one that is under litigation in the courts, so I will not be speaking to that.”

Dr. Naomi Wolf responded to such statements. “Dr. Walensky, when she said, I can’t speak to that because it’s under litigation, two Attorneys General, one from Missouri, and one from Louisiana, have sued and disclosed that, in fact, she the CDC, she right there, that woman was colluding with Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Twitter, DHS, and the White House to censor information, including from yours truly right here in June of 2021, to warn women that there were menstrual problems subsequent to this injection, which, of course, has resulted two years later in fertility problems.”

“She did that, and he [Mark Zuckerberg] did that,” Dr. Wolf continued. “And now that the truth is coming out because of people like you and me and the hard work that we’re doing, and our 3500 volunteers. Now they’re like, ‘Oh, really bad that the government pushed us to censor things that might have been true.’ Well, yes. Mark Zuckerberg. They were true. And he’s injured so many women and babies and killed babies as a result of censoring that. And when Dr. Walensky said it’s under litigation, we’re suing her. George Smith, our lawyer in Ohio, sued her, and many other people are suing her for having lied and injured Americans as a result.”

Dr. Walensky was also “jumpy,” observed Dr. Wolf. “My husband’s a body language expert, and so it’s interesting watching this with him.” The man who appeared to be Dr. Walensky’s lawyer in the background often covered his mouth when Dr. Walensky had “blown it.” “And she blew it a couple of times,” remarked Dr. Wolf, but she also “lied twice.”

Here are those two lies, as outlined by Dr. Naomi Wolf.

Lie One: when Dr. Walensky stated that she didn’t know the COVID shots didn’t stop transmission when she touted “95% effective” to the American people.

“Well, our experts, our report [73] has shown that she knew perfectly well she was lying at the time she said that to Americans — that our experts found that Pfizer knew in November of 2020, which means she knew because she had the same documents, that the vaccines did not work to stop COVID,” stated Dr. Wolf.

“And in fact, Pfizer got rid of [at least] 200 vaccinated COVID-sick people in their trials in order falsely to make the claim that they were 95% effective. But the fact that they got rid of those 200-[plus] sick people is right there in the documents that Rochelle Walensky was given.”

Dr. Chris Flowers, MD, attests that if those 200-plus people who were excluded from Pfizer’s clinical trials with COVID-like symptoms had been included, it would have shown that Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots actually had “negative efficacy.” Dr. Chris Flowers breaks down the data in this interview.

Lie Two: when Dr. Walensky stated you couldn’t transmit COVID while vaccinated.

“This was the basis for the illegal mandates,” lamented Dr. Wolf. “Well, she knew perfectly well at the time she said it that that was a lie. And in fact, the Pfizer Documents show, as of November 2020, that the vaccines didn’t work to stop transmission — that there was vaccine failure and failure of efficacy. So she categorically lied to Congress twice,” Dr. Wolf asserted.

In fact, Dutch MEP Rob Roos got a Pfizer spokesperson (J. Small) to admit that the pharmaceutical giant never confirmed its COVID shots stopped transmission because it had to “move at the speed of science.”

More Lies: Dr. Walensky’s verbal exchange with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA).

Dr. Wolf expressed she was “frustrated watching this hearing because all of the evidence that these interrogators on the right needed is in our Pfizer Documents book. For the most part, they didn’t ask the right questions or the right follow-up questions, except for Marjorie Taylor Greene.”

Here’s the summarized transcript of that interaction:

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: “I’d also like to talk to you on behalf of all the pregnant women, not people, as you call them. This has also been ignored, the amount of miscarriages and stillbirths that increased drastically due to your advice to get vaccinated. Pregnant women, again, not people. But my question for you today, Dr. Walensky, is now that you’re going to be leaving the CDC pretty soon, what job are you going to take? Are you going to be on the board of either Pfizer or Moderna? Because you’ve done one hell of a job at making sure that they’ve made a lot of money. And I yield back.”

ROCHELLE WALENSKY: “Thank you for that question. Maybe first, I will comment that CDC is not responsible for the purchase of vaccines. So I can’t speak to all of the economics that you spoke to. I do want to talk [for] a minute about the Vaccine Adverse Reporting — that Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. So that system is intended for any person who has gotten a vaccine if they have an untoward event after that vaccine, whether or not it is related to the vaccine they report. It is intended to have an overreporting. All of the vaccines — not all — most of the vaccines that were being given. Remember, we gave 676 million doses of the vaccine. Any adverse event, if you got hit by a truck after you got your vaccine, that was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. We at CDC have a responsibility to comb through every single one of them to review the medical charts and to see if they are related. We review all of the things that come into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. I’d be happy to have our staff educate your staff on the —”

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: “I don’t want my staff educated. You should educate the American people about what you’ve done [with] 1.5 million reports because they feel like you’ve done nothing and continue to say ‘safe and effective.’”

ROCHELLE WALENSKY: “Maybe I will just close my saying I don’t have plans after I step down.”

“So many lies. Lies upon lies,” responded Dr. Naomi Wolf.

“She’s using her education, her access, her resources to hurt and injure and kill people and lie to the American people before Congress.”

“VAERS is actually not designed to overreport,” Dr. Wolf countered. “According to Harvard University, in her hometown of Boston, it underreports by a factor of 1% to 10%. And even the most established scientists and healthcare institutions accept that VAERS underreports.”

“Secondly, if they’re tasked with looking into every single one of those reports to VAERS, why on earth did they not look at that gigantic spike in miscarriages? Dr. Wolf asked. “They didn’t do that,” she lamented. “So even if she claims, oh, all these [reports] — it wasn’t the vaccine. She doesn’t know it wasn’t a vaccine because they did not look. There are no studies that the CDC ran to look at why the spiking of reports of miscarriage and spontaneous abortion coinciding with the rollout of vaccine were so massive.”

“Third,” Dr. Wolf continued. “What she’s lying about is that she knows exactly what caused those spontaneous abortions and miscarriages because she has the same paperwork from Pfizer that we have. And there’s a section in the Pfizer documents where there’s an 80 percent miscarriage rate after women got vaccinated. And there’s another section where — and this is in report 69 — where Pfizer shows that two of these tiny babies in utero who were delivered early, meaning spontaneously aborted after their moms got vaccinated and died.”

“The reason for that was, in Pfizer’s words, ‘transplacental’ exposure to the vaccine,” Dr. Wolf attested.

Transplacental exposure to the vaccine,” she repeated. “She [Dr. Walensky] had these documents. She knew what they said. And this was turned in a report to the White House, the CDC, and the FDA on April 20, 2021. On April 23, 2021, that woman got up in front of the White House at a press conference and said to the pregnant women of America that she recommended that they get vaccinated. She said the vaccine was safe and effective for pregnancy, and she recommended that pregnant women get vaccinated to protect their babies. And she said [that] there’s never a bad time to get vaccinated before your pregnancy, during your pregnancy, or after you’re pregnant. And she knew this report from Pfizer that showed that babies were dying in utero due to transplacental exposure, Pfizer’s words. And that they were being poisoned by the mRNA and spike protein in their mother’s breast milk.”

“That woman murdered babies, and she knew it,” asserted Dr. Wolf. “And five days after we posted [Pfizer] Report 69, she announced her resignation. So that’s what Congress should be asking her about. Did she know that? And if so, why did she tell pregnant women of America to take something that would kill their babies and poison them if they breastfed them?”

That famous Pfizer Report 69, which was published five days before Dr. Walensky’s resignation announcement, is available for free, along with all the other Pfizer Documents Reports on dailyclout.io.

Pfizer Report 73, which details how Pfizer knew by November 2020 that its mRNA COVID shot was neither safe nor effective, is available here. That particular report is a highly-technical read, but one of the authors, Dr. Chris Flowers, MD, summarizes the main points in this interview:

And if you’d like to support the work of Dr. Naomi WolfAmy Kelly, and the 3500 DailyClout/War Room volunteers, please order a copy of the Pfizer Documents Book for yourself, a family member, a friend, your doctor, or your local representative. The greatest crime in human history is all thoroughly documented here:

 

Categories
Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Looking. Biden Touts U.S. Building World’s Largest Solar Plant — in Angola.

Looking. Biden Touts U.S. Building World’s Largest Solar Plant — in Angola.

President Joe Biden is bragging that his administration is building one of the world’s largest solar plants, not in the United States but rather in the Central African nation of Angola.

“You know, soon — soon, Africa will have one billion people,” Biden said during remarks at the League of Conservation Voters Annual Capital Dinner. Despite Biden’s claim, Africa’s population hit one billion residents in 2009 when he was vice president in the Obama administration.

“We have plans to build … in Angola one of the largest solar plants in the world,” Biden bragged. “I can go on, but I’m not.”

Indeed, earlier this month, the U.S. Export-Import Bank announced a $900 million direct loan to Angola “to support the construction of two photovoltaic solar energy power plants in the country,” officials said.

The massive multi-million project comes as, last year, Biden decided to exempt foreign-made bifacial solar panels — the overwhelming majority of which come from China — from Section 201 tariffs on solar imports to the U.S. that were first imposed by former President Trump in January 2018 at a 30 percent rate.

After that decision, LG Electronics announced that it will be closing its Huntsville, Alabama, solar panel manufacturing plant — resulting in more than 200 Americans being laid off.

In addition, Biden has continuously sided with Chinese solar manufacturers by imposing a tariff moratorium on solar panel imports from Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Malaysia even as his Commerce Department has said that the panels are made in China but have been routed through the four southeast Asian nations to avoid U.S. tariffs.