President Donald Trump signs executive orders on stage at an indoor Presidential Inauguration parade event in Washington, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
President Trump yesterday signed 200 executive orders and in those 200 were the J6 pardons and the revoking of security clearance of 51 former intel officers.
The letter came after the New York Post reported they had emails showing Hunter Biden coordinated for Joe Biden to meet with a top executive at Ukrainian energy company Burisma months before pressuring Ukrainian officials to oust a prosecutor investigating the company.
Other executive orders Trump signed on day one include rescinding nearly 80 executive orders and memoranda issued under Biden, issuing a regulatory and hiring freeze upon the federal government, preventing “government censorship” of free speech, and directing every department and agency to address the cost-of-living crisis.
The jury ruled that Young is owed $5 million in compensation from the fake news network for lost earnings and personal damages. Yet to come are the punitive damages. The jury will decide on that amount in the trial’s next phase, when each side has the opportunity to present its case on what the amount should be.
After eight hours of deliberation, the video below can only be described as pornography for decent people:
BREAKING 🚨 A Jury just now found CNN liable for Defaming U.S. Navy Veteran who helped with Afghanistan evacuation
What happens when a Conservative is leading in the polls for President? Romania cancels the elections.
Far left Romania took a page from the US Progressives one step further. A Conservative looked to be a victor in the second round of voting. Romania’s top court cancelled the elections.
Claims of Russian interference. Sound familiar? Well the people took to the streets.
Hundreds of thousands of Romanians furious with the current government for the cancellation of the presidential election marched today through the capital Bucharest to demand that the vote should proceed and that outgoing – and by now illegitimate – President Klaus Iohannis should resign. Reuters reported:
Former U.S. President Donald Trump, with lawyers Christopher Kise and Alina Habba, attends the closing arguments in the Trump Organization civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court in the Manhattan borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024. (Shannon Stapleton/Pool Photo via AP)
So you would think that a person would get a ton of jail time and a huge fine for being convicted of 34 felonies. That’s right 34. So what did Donald Trump get?
Under New York state law, it’s a sentence imposed “without imprisonment, fine or probation supervision.” According to the law, such a sentence can be appropriate when the judge “is of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant’s release.”
I’ve never heard of a situation where someone is found guilty of 34 felonies and gets nothing but a wish of hope you do well.
So can we assume that she had direct communications with her father when it came to information about the trial? And why did the gag order against Trump include any information about what the daughter was doing in reference to her raising money off the trial?
The Supreme Court of California dismissed a lawsuit arguing that hospitals not showing certain costs in emergency care prior to treatment violate state laws, ruling the institutions are not obligated to disclose such fees.
The ruling was made following a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff Taylor Capito against San Jose Healthcare System, also known as Regional Medical Center San Jose. In 2019, Capito was treated twice at the medical center’s emergency department, paying more than $41,000. She filed a complaint against the center in 2020, accusing the medical center of not providing advance notice of evaluation and management services (EMS) fees.
She alleged that this amounted to an “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business” practice as per California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and violated the state’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
The case went to a trial court and the appeals court, both of which rejected the plaintiff’s claims. The Supreme Court of California then took up the case.
According to a Dec. 23 court opinion, the Supreme Court dismissed Capito’s claims on Monday, agreeing with the two courts.
“Hospitals do not have a duty under the UCL or CLRA, beyond their obligations under the relevant statutory and regulatory scheme, to disclose EMS fees prior to treating emergency room patients,” it said.
“The California Legislature, the United States Congress, and numerous rulemaking bodies have already decided what pricing information to make available in a hospital’s emergency room. Just as importantly, they have decided what not to include in those requirements.”
The reason authorities have avoided mandating the inclusion of certain fees is to prevent patients from getting dissuaded by seeing prices and opting out of potentially life-saving care, the court wrote.
Forcing hospitals to show EMS costs would lead to patients weighing the price against the necessity of such procedures. Insisting that such prices be shown assumes that patients in emergency rooms are capable of diagnosing “whether their ailment is relatively minor.”
In the lawsuit, the plaintiff did not accuse Regional Medical Center of failing to comply with the mandated disclosure requirements. Capito also did not allege that she was charged fees for services not provided or that the fees were excessive.
“Neither the UCL nor CLRA requires further disclosure of EMS fees beyond what the regulatory scheme requires,” the court opinion said.
Burden on Hospitals
The California Hospital Association (CHA) has argued against the push for notifying patients about fees in emergency treatment conditions.
In June last year, the organization filed an amicus brief in another lawsuit in which a plaintiff made arguments similar to those in the Capito case. The plaintiff said that California hospitals must disclose EMS fees to patients in emergency care prior to their treatment in accordance with UCL and CLRA laws.
Allowing such a policy would impose “an unreasonable duty” on hospitals, said the association.
“Hospitals cannot determine the costs of patient care prior to treatment, especially emergency care. The treatment necessary for a particular patient depends on the severity of the patient’s condition, which is impossible for either the patient or the hospital to know in advance,” the association said.
“Besides, a patient’s financial responsibility for treatment costs depends on his or her insurance status and coverage. Even assuming a patient has insurance, the hospital cannot foresee whether, and to what extent, the insurer will provide coverage for the services ultimately rendered to the patient.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) is looking into the potential impact of private equity-run emergency care services provided to hospital patients.
According to an April 1 statement, he sent letters to private equity companies and physician staffing companies asking for information on patient care and other matters.
The letters followed multiple interviews conducted by his office with more than 40 emergency medicine physicians across the United States.
“I am concerned that our nation’s largest emergency medicine staffing companies may be engaging in cost-saving measures at the expense of patient safety and care, which could put our nation’s emergency preparedness at risk,” Peters said. “I am pressing these companies and their private equity owners for needed transparency.”
Just a reminder of how well California is doing in other areas.
A Georgia appeals court has disqualified Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from her election-related criminal case against President-elect Donald Trump, although the indictment still stands.
Willis’s office charged Trump and his codefendants in 2023 for what they alleged was a scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia illegally. They pleaded not guilty.
However, Willis’s case hit a snag in early 2024 after it was revealed that she had a romantic relationship with the case’s then-special prosecutor, Nathan Wade. A Fulton County judge in March ruled that Willis could remain as prosecutor if Wade resigned, which he later did.
Trump and multiple codefendants appealed the judge’s decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which rendered its decision on Willis Thursday morning.
“After carefully considering the trial court’s findings in its order, we conclude that it erred by failing to disqualify DA Willis and her office,” the Georgia Court of Appeals’s majority wrote in its decision.
The court added that a “remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring.”
Earlier this year, Trump codefendant Michael Roman alleged in court papers that Willis and Wade were in a romantic relationship.
During a court hearing weeks later, both Wade and Willis admitted to being romantically involved, although the pair denied allegations that either of them benefited financially from the arrangement. They also disputed claims that their relationship started after Wade was hired as a special prosecutor and ended in the summer of 2023.
In rendering a decision to allow Willis to stay on the case, Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee wrote that an “odor of mendacity” persisted in light of the allegations against the district attorney and Wade.
McAfee also admonished Willis for the “unprofessional manner” in how she conducted herself during the evidentiary hearing and showed a “lapse in judgment.” He also chided her for what he described as racially charged statements she made at a church in Atlanta after Roman made the allegations against her.
However, the judge said he was not able to conclusively establish that there was a conflict of interest.
Throughout the court battle, Willis has defended her own conduct and Wade’s qualifications. During a CNN interview earlier this year, Willis said she believes the appeals court proceedings were only an attempt to slow down the case.
“I do think that there are efforts to slow down the train, but the train is coming,” Willis said at the time, adding that she does not believe her relationship with Wade impacted the case.
The case against Trump and the others, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, had been stalled for months as the appeals court considered the Willis removal petition.
The ruling Thursday now means that the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia will have to find another prosecutor to take over the case and decide whether to pursue it, though that could be delayed if Willis appeals to higher courts.
It appears unlikely that prosecution against Trump will continue as he prepares to be president for the next four years. But 14 other defendants still face charges.
Prosecutors dropped two federal criminal cases against Trump since he won the presidency in November.
Meanwhile, a judge in New York has said he would not throw out Trump’s conviction in May on the case alleging 34 counts of falsifying business records, though the future of that case is uncertain.
A federal court has denied a motion by anti-Trump pundit Andrew Weissmann to dismiss a defamation suit by former White House lawyer Stefan Passantino over false claims that he had coached a January 6 Committee witness to lie.
This case tells us that we need to get another Congressional hearing on those who testified on January 6. Also get the folks who the Democrats refused to call for what evidence they had.
In September, U.S. District Court Judge Loren AliKhan denied a motion from MSNBC legal analyst and attorney Andrew Weissmann to dismiss a complaint filed by Stefan Passantino, who represented former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson before she became the Jan. 6 Committee’s star witness.
…
“This is an insidious lie,” Passantino’s lawsuit reads. “Ms. Hutchinson even testified, under penalty of law: ‘I want to make this clear to you: Stefan [Passantino] never told me to lie. … He told me not to lie.”
Reported by USA Today, an obvious leftist publication.
Leftists in panic: SCOTUS Lets Virginia Resume “Purge” of Voter Rolls of Non-citizens Before Election.
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed Virginia to reinstate a purge of suspected noncitizens from voter rolls.
Over the objections of the three liberal justices, the court accepted an emergency request from state officials to intervene after lower courts stopped a state program that had removed more than 1,600 names since Aug. 7.
Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, called the order a “victory for commonsense and election fairness.”
Danielle Lang, senior director for voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center, which represented advocacy groups in the lawsuit, called it “outrageous” to allow “a last-minute purge that includes many known eligible citizens.”
“But the voters will decide this election, not the courts,” Lang said. “Eligible Virginia voters should know that regardless of this purge they can register to vote on Election Day & cast their ballots.”
Voting rights groups fought the state policy because it removed naturalized citizens from the rolls if they had previously declared themselves noncitizens on motor vehicle forms. Youngkin’s program had notified suspected noncitizens they would be removed if they didn’t affirm their citizenship within 14 days.
But because years might have passed since the motor vehicle declarations, advocacy groups and the Justice Department challenged the program in court, arguing naturalized citizens were being removed from the voter rolls.
The advocacy groups quoted Prince William County Registrar Eric Olsen, who said at an election board meeting Sept. 30 that his office reviewed 162 people listed as noncitizens in the state’s computer system and found 43 had voted previously. But his office checked and found all 43 had verified their citizenship − some as many as five times − but were still dropped from voter rolls.
A Trump supporter who was purged from the rolls told Cardinal News he suspects he forgot to mark his citizenship status on the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles form when he renewed his driver’s license.
Another voter, who showed NPR her passport, said she doesn’t know why the DMV incorrectly recorded her as a noncitizen.
In addition to blocking further purges, U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles ordered the state to restore the registrations of those canceled since Aug. 7 because federal law prohibits voter purges within 90 days of an election when voters may not have enough time to fix errors. A federal appeals court upheld that decision.
But Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares told the Supreme Court the federal “quiet period” provision doesn’t apply to removing noncitizens from the voter rolls because they never should have been on the rolls.
Even if a citizen is mistakenly purged from the rolls, Miyares said, that person can re-register to vote and cast a provisional ballot.
The Justice Department argued that Virginia could still investigate specific individuals – including any of the 1,600 – it suspects are noncitizens but can’t use a broad-based removal method this close to an election.
“Everyone agrees that States can and should remove ineligible voters, including noncitizens, from their voter rolls,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court. “The only question in this case is when and how they may do so.”
Studies have found a negligible number of suspected noncitizens vote, presumably because of the threat of criminal charges and deportation if caught. Studies by the Brennan Center for Justice and the libertarian Cato Institute have found noncitizen voting is essentially nonexistent.
But Republicans have made removal of suspected noncitizens a focus of their voter integrity lawsuits this year.
So, leftist studies show non-citizens aren’t on the voter rolls? Really? Despite proof that they are? How — uhm — LEFTIST of them.
Beating the left in court. Amsterdam NY was like one of the Midwest rustbelt cities. Their manufacturing was gone and all that was left was empty buildings.
Anthony Constantino has been buying the old buildings and brining back manufacturing. So far1,500 jobs. In the one building he put his company Sticker Mule. On top of it he put a huge Vote Trump sign.
The leftist mayor went to court and got a temporary injunction. Supporters of the former president in upstate New York won a last-minute court victory allowing them to illuminate a 100-foot wide “Vote for Trump” sign — despite their city’s effort to block the massive political endorsement.
The judge lifted the temporary restraining order in the nick of time, after hearing oral arguments on the case, ending at around 5:30 p.m. Monday. The mayor and lawyers claimed the sign posed a risk to the drivers on the highway. The judge agreed to vacate her prior order on the grounds that the sign is sufficiently far from highways and doesn’t pose a danger.
