Category: The Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Perdie / Breitbart News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

Matt Perdie / Breitbart News

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

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

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

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

Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Commentary Corruption Elections Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Abrams: Georgia case against Trump riddled with conflicts.

Good Bad, and the Ugly. David Walter Banks/The Washington Post/Brandon Bell/Getty Images

 

  • Abrams: Georgia case against Trump riddled with conflicts.
  • Former President Trump is facing 13 new charges in Georgia
  • The charges stem from alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election
  • Abrams: Fulton County DA Fani Willis has overtly politicized the case

Updated: 

(NewsNation) — Last week, I called for something which I knew was highly controversial. I said that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should drop her case against former President Donald Trump after federal officials indicted him for basically the same conduct. Not because she doesn’t have a case — Willis certainly has the legal ability and right to move forward — but I argued it simply wasn’t the right thing to do.

I stand by what I said now that Willis and her office have officially indicted Trump and 18 other codefendants in a 41-count indictment, 13 of which are against Trump himself. It’s a wide-ranging racketeering case alleging Trump and his allies conspired to reject the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

Now, my comments were never related to the others, just the former president. Let me be clear, this indictment reminds us of the absurd lengths that Trump and his team went to try to overturn the actual results of the election.

Trump, of course, denies the charges and has set his own news conference for next week. He says he will present “a large, complex, detailed but irrefutable report on the presidential election fraud which took place in Georgia” which he says will lead to a “complete exoneration” of him.

We shall see. But there are two main reasons that remain as to why Willis shouldn’t be doing this.

No. 1: The federal case makes the Georgia case against Trump duplicative and unnecessary. No. 2: Willis’ case is riddled with conflicts and political considerations that will be easy for the Trump team to exploit.

Willis bringing this case is just bad for everyone, and I mean everyone.

The more important issue is that the federal indictment makes Willis’ case unnecessary. It goes into depth on the Georgia allegations and both indictments highlight similar quotes.

Do we need another case brought on basically the same set of facts?

Jack Smith goes state by state in the federal indictment, very meticulously addressing conduct. So, now are prosecutors in other states going to bring cases against Trump, too? Now, that is different from charging the actual fake electors as Michigan and now Georgia have done.

The biggest argument I hear again and again is that if Trump is reelected, he couldn’t make state charges go away, only federal. That’s true, but that is not a reason for a prosecutor to act and there is no way the state trial is going to happen any time soon.

And if Trump wins the 2024 election, the U.S. Supreme Court barely let Bill Clinton get sued while in office; they will not let a state prosecutor try the sitting president of the United States in a criminal case.

That could be why Willis has pledged to do the impossible, which is to get this case to trial within the next six months. She currently has a gang-related RICO case that is still in its eighth month of jury selection.

But, even the DOJ itself has a policy seeking to limit multiple prosecutions. It says: “The purpose of this policy is to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s), to promote efficient utilization of department resources, and to promote coordination and cooperation between federal and state prosecutors.”

The reverse should be true, as well. But, it’s not just that. It’s also Willis’ conduct before Monday night.

She has given more than three dozen media interviews on the investigation. Even the judge overseeing the grand jury said she is “on national media almost nightly talking about the investigation.”

In many of those interviews, she repeatedly kept hinting at the outcome of the case. In the end, it was certainly not a question of if the indictment would come, but when.

Her explanations for why it’s taken two and a half years to get here have made little sense.

“The right to have your vote protected is a serious one and so, you know, I’ve told people many times I’m not going to be rushed. We are doing what is needed for justice,” Willis said in one interview.

That can’t be true. With the special counsel, the delay is more easily understood. Attorney General Merrick Garland likely wasn’t going to bring charges against Trump for trying to overturn the election. Even after the Jan. 6 committee’s criminal referrals, it sure didn’t seem the attorney general was going to act on it, much to the frustration of liberals.

Then, the documents case landed on his lap with the former president seemingly trying to prevent the DOJ from getting back highly sensitive government documents stored at Mar-A-Lago.. At that point, Garland apparently feels he has to deal with it and eventually he appoints a special counsel who then essentially takes it where he wants. That explains that delay.

Jack Smith has only been investigating since November of last year, but what could possibly have taken Willis this long? It took her a year to even request a special purpose grand jury. Why? And that “special purpose” grand jury was just advisory. They heard evidence for eight months and then clearly recommended indictments in February. We know that because the foreperson, just like Willis, sort of hinted at it in an interview.

“We definitely heard a lot about former President Trump and we definitely discussed him a lot in the room. And I’ll say that when this list comes out, there are no major plot twists waiting for you,” the foreperson said.

It all felt like a game. Meanwhile, Willis has also regularly appeared to express her own personal opinions that what Trump did was illegal. After all, the key legal question is: Did he have corrupt intent?

Willis has long made it clear that in Trump’s call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, where he asked the secretary of state to “find” 11,780 votes, that he had that corrupt intent, even before the indictment ever came down.

“You look at facts to see did they really have intent? Did they know what they were doing? Detailed facts become important, like asking for a specific number and going back and investigating and understanding that number is one more than the number that is needed. It lets you know someone had a clear mind that they knew what they were doing,” Willis said in a 2021 interview.

So, if you know that, why has it taken two and a half years? Yes, the RICO case she’s now charging is sweeping and has moving parts that took time. But it still just feels like she has been milking this.

That’s not all. She has also overtly politicized it. Last July, less than two weeks after Willis subpoenaed South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, she used her campaign Twitter account to tweet out a cartoon.

The cartoon showed her fishing Graham out of a swamp with what appears to be a depiction of Trump saying: “I know you’ll do the right thing for the swamp, Lindsey.” All the while, her campaign was using the account to solicit donations.

Can you imagine if that was a Republican prosecutor seemingly exploiting the subpoena of a progressive liberal Democrat to solicit campaign donations? There would be no end to the mainstream media’s hysteria.

But this wasn’t the only time Willis and her surrogates referenced the Trump investigation to solicit followers, tweets and donations for her campaign. And that doesn’t even address the actual documented conflict of interest she had.

Willis subpoenaed alleged fake elector Burt Jones, a Republican state senator who at the time of the subpoena was running for lieutenant governor. Willis then hosted a fundraiser for Jones’ political opponent.

Jones went on to win the election, but Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney could not believe the actions of Willis. In a hearing, he called what she did a “what are you thinking?” moment.

Look, Willis is too far in politically to let this go. I understand that. I also get the arguments about accountability, pardons and state vs. federal cases.

But, I think the right thing to do would have been to let the feds handle a case that is about conduct by the president of the United States while he was president.

And to those who desperately want to see Trump locked up and believe that any prosecution of him is a noble one, well you may come to regret this case. Already Monday, there was the release of what appeared to be a draft indictment of Trump hours before the official indictment was handed up.

The DA’s office called the document “fictitious” but in fact, the charges listed on it turned out to be identical to the final indictment. They weren’t the final charges, but it was a huge blunder and one Willis wasn’t even willing to address.

“No, I can’t tell you anything about what you refer to. What I can tell you is that we had a grand jury here in Fulton County. They deliberated until almost 8 o’clock, if not right after 8 o’clock. An indictment was returned and it was true billed. And you now have an indictment. I am not an expert on clerk’s duties or even administrative duties so I wouldn’t know how to work that system and so I’m not going to speculate,” Willis said.

Except, it immediately gave the Trump team a legitimate argument. I am betting this case will end up giving Trump and his supporters many more legitimate arguments to make about the unfairness the prosecutor and the process.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not of NewsNation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the charges and you be the judge.

Bring it on. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

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

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

Per the indictment:

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

Republican allies have also jumped to Trump’s defense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hunter Biden special counsel may have found a ‘smoking gun’: Alan Dershowitz.

Gathering of the Biden Cartel. FOX.

Hunter Biden special counsel may have found a ‘smoking gun’: Alan Dershowitz.

By Charles Creitz | Fox News

After U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware David Weiss was named special counsel in the Hunter Biden investigation, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Fox News the change-in-venue from Delaware to Los Angeles may be more important than it seems.

Attorney General Merrick Garland named Weiss, a Trump appointee held over by President Biden to eschew concerns of conflict-of-interest, special counsel in the first son’s case last week.

Dershowitz noted the announcement was accompanied by a change-in-venue from the District of Delaware to the Central District of California, where Hunter Biden lives when he is not at his father’s home in Greenville, Del.

“”This is possibly a big deal. It’s not just a technical change because they’ve dropped the current indictment, and they’ve vitiated the plea bargain, which I predicted they would,” Dershowitz said Sunday on “Life, Liberty & Levin” of the appointment of Weiss as special counsel.

DEAR DEVON: JORDAN SAYS BOMBSHELL LETTER FROM BIDEN TO ARCHER PROVES CONNECTIONS TO HUNTER

President Joe Biden and family

President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden joined by Hunter Biden and Ashley Biden. (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

“I said right from the beginning, this plea bargain is not going to last. And now they’re moving the case to the Central District of California. That means that the special counsel probably found something: maybe a smoking gun, maybe just a gun.”

Dershowitz told “Life, Liberty & Levin” there had to have been some new information or determination in the case that led it to be moved across the country.

Host Mark Levin further noted however, that it is unusual and potentially legally murky to allow Weiss to continue serving as a federal prosecutor while also being named special counsel.

“People have said that now they can use this to prevent [Kentucky Rep. James] Comer from conducting his investigation,” he said, “Under the government rules you’re not allowed to be both, but government rules are out the window these days.”

MCCARTHY: IF HUNTER IS A FOREIGN POLICY EXPERT, WHY AREN’T NATO NATIONS CALLING HIM; ONLY UKRAINE, CHINA

David Weiss

Special Counsel David Weiss (Fox News screenshot)

Levin argued neither Garland nor Weiss should be able to use the new special counsel assignment as a basis to substantively change Congress’ oversight ability.

In a recent Fox News Opinion column, legal analyst Gregg Jarrett cited federal regulation 28 CFR 600.3, which states a special counsel shall be selected from outside the United States government. Jarrett argued in the column that Weiss’ new appointment is therefore a “farce.”

Recent special counsels and independent counsels have indeed come from outside government, as Robert Hur, the prosecutor investigating President Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, hasn’t been the U.S. attorney in Baltimore since 2021, John Durham and Robert Mueller – of the Russia probes – were no longer Connecticut’s U.S. attorney or FBI director, respectively, and about a year had lapsed between Ken Starr’s stint as U.S. solicitor general and Whitewater-Lewinsky independent counsel.

Dershowitz further said the change in Hunter Biden’s case is a constitutional issue that rightly concerns separation of powers and governmental checks-and-balances, especially pertaining to whether Congress can continue to have the same high level of oversight if Hunter Biden is now subject to special counsel investigation.

He said the fact the feds say they are conducting an investigation is notable, but not “determinative” as to Congress’ prescribed abilities.

 

The appointment of David Weiss as special counsel was a joke: Rep. James ComerVideo

“Congress can demand issue subpoenas, hold people in contempt. If they refuse to answer, then the courts will have to decide,” he said.

In a statement following Weiss’ new appointment, Comer accused Garland of committing another “attempt [at] a Biden family coverup in light of the House Oversight Committee’s mounting evidence of President Joe Biden’s role in his family’s schemes selling ‘the brand’ for millions of dollars to foreign nationals.”

Former President Donald Trump, himself under special counsel investigations overseen by former Obama Justice Department Integrity Section chief Jack Smith, has pushed back on citations of Weiss as a “Trump appointee” – arguing the prosecutor can mostly thank the First State’s two Democratic senators for his job.

In July, Trump called Weiss a “coward” and “a smaller version of Bill Barr,” adding that Sens. Chris Coons and Tom Carper, D-Del., “got to choose and/or approve him.”

U.S. attorney nominations are by-law made by the president with the “advice and consent” of the U.S. Senate. Coons and Carper, through the blue-slip tradition, gave the Republican prosecutor their blessing.

Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Crime The Law

Judicial Watch Statement on Special Counsel to Investigate Bidens: Follow up to previous articles

August 11, 2023 | Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the appointment of U.S. Attorney David Weiss as special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Biden family finances:

Attorney General Garland folded today, stopped ignoring DOJ regulations, and finally appointed a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden and (indirectly) President Joe Biden for their corrupt family business dealings.

But appointing U.S. Attorney Weiss as special counsel, a man who tried to unethically slide Hunter’s corrupt plea deal past a federal judge is a sick joke. In fact, Mr. Weiss should be under investigation for his dishonest statements to Congress and his compromised, sweetheart plea deal for Hunter Biden.

Given the powerful and unrefuted testimony before Congress by senior IRS investigators that the criminal investigation of Hunter was obstructed by the Justice Department (when Weiss was nominally running the investigation) in order to protect Joe Biden, Weiss is the last person who should be special counsel.

Congress should speed up and escalate its investigations of Biden’s corruption, as the Justice Department is ethically broken.

In the meantime, Judicial Watch will continue its leadership role in investigating and exposing the worsening Biden corruption crisis through numerous FOIA and other federal and state legal actions.

Think about it. Weiss OBSTRUCTED the IRS criminal investigation to protect the Bidens. And now he’s the Special Council??? — TPR

 

Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Government Overreach Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law

Show them all. All the Trump circus shows should be televised.

America agrees. This is all political. GP Photo.

Show them all. All the Trump circus shows should be televised. Democrats in the House are calling for the trial about the much to do about nothing mostly peaceful gathering be televised.

I say televise them all. Let the American people see what kind of affirmative action judges and DA’S that are out there.

Categories
Abortion rights? Emotional abuse How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Transgender WOKE

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South” Leftist publication whines.

This article comes from the “BuzzLoving.com” website and is written by a Trump-hating leftist calling itself “Milla” — you can see all 81 pages of articles it’s written by going HERE.

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South” – US Supreme Court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights.

–Original Article headline

Before I get into the article proper, let me state my personal opinion to the rainbow community at large.

You have the right to be whatever you chose to be. Just like I have the right to be myself. You DON’T have the right to demand that I think your way and kowtow to your fantasies on penalty of being beaten, killed or labeled a bigot, a Nazi, or any other derogatory term you come up with. I don’t have the right to sue you for being what you chose to be, but you don’t have the right to try to enforce your fantasies on me via a lawsuit, either. You respect me, I’ll respect you, even if we don’t agree on life choices. Simple. That’s the way a mature person behaves.
End of disclaimer.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an evangelical Christian web designer from Colorado who refused to work on invites for same-sex marriage, giving a significant blow to the rights of LGBTQ couples.

The Supreme Court cited free speech.

Evangelical Christian web designer Lorie Smith has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to decline to endorse messages she disagrees with, it has been decided. This one decision could cause other owners of similar creative businesses to evade penalties under laws in 29 states that defend the rights of the LGBTQ community. (Notice the defendant is a biological woman. –TPR)

The statement from the Justice

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place, where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” He added, “At the same time, this court has also recognized that no public accommodation law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this court has held public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.”

Shutterstock photo

Smith sued on hypothetical grounds.

Smith opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and sued the state in 2016 because she said she would like to accept customers planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples. She was never disciplined for declining a same-sex couple, and it’s unclear if she ever did. Instead, she sued on hypothetical grounds.

(THIS IS NOT “HYPOTHETICAL” Colorado anyone? And the author’s painfully obvious bias is on full display here. –TPR)

Smith celebrated, but many expressed worry and dread.

(How many is “many” there, cupcake? — TPR)

“This is a victory not just for me but for all of us; whether you share my beliefs or completely disagree with them, free speech is for everyone,” Smith told the press. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that this was a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities” and a type of “reactionary exclusion,” calling it “heartbreaking.”

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes.”

Former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman shared that this was a major blow to human rights, writing, “Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South & posit that the owners attest that they have sincere religious beliefs, reinforced by their pastor every Sunday, that Blacks are inferior and that serving them would force them to endorse a message they disagree with..” Litman added, “That’s where we are headed.”

(Oh oh, Not kowtowing is “racist” now, is it? *facepalm*– TPR)

“The opinion is out there like a loaded gun.”

The lawyer also clarified, “To be clear, I’m not saying that’s where we are headed, although to paraphrase Justice Jackson, the opinion is out there like a loaded gun for someone who wants to go that way. The point for today is just that the opinion doesn’t have a limiting principle that forecloses that result.”

(Bloviate much? Oh, I forgot, you’re not only a person with a law degree, but you’re also a bureaucrat. Silly me. –TPR)

Another important takeaway

Time wrote, “Put plainly: states can try to pass local anti-bigotry laws, but national religious liberties still supersede them.” The publication also connected how the ruling came a year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, and Court watchers predicted that things would only get worse for women as well as LGBTQ rights.

(“For women?” Really. Sorry, that just won’t wash. Maybe for those females who are still emotional babies, but not for anyone who accepts the responsibility for their own actions. –TPR)

 

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

Attorney John Lauro: Trump Is Being Criminalized For Objecting To The Way That 2020 Election Was Handled.

Corruption at the highest level.

Attorney John Lauro: Trump Is Being Criminalized For Objecting To The Way That 2020 Election Was Handled.

This writer ( Right or Wrong ) has decided that the Trump indictments are nothing but cover for the Biden Cartel possible crimes. I’ve decided, that after today to pretty much ignore these falsehoods. Now if there is something that’s newsworthy I’ll comment on it. But there’s so much news out there that’s news worthy. Enjoy the article below.

Trump attorney John Lauro spoke to FOX News host Bret Baier on Tuesday following the announcement of another indictment against the former president. Lauro said Trump is being criminalized for questioning whether the 2020 election was conducted in a valid way.

Lauro said when this case goes to trial, “we’re going to be representing not just President Trump, but every single American that believes in the First Amendment and believes in your ability to redress and bring grievances to Congress.”

“It’s not just issues of fraud,” Lauro said of the 2020 election. It’s also the fact that procedures were changed, undeniably so, that procedures at the state level were changed without the ability of the legislature to weigh in. And what President Trump was raising when he asked Vice President Pence to send it back to the state legislatures was to give the legislature in each state of those contested states one last chance to make a determination, because the reality is that the state legislatures in every state has the ultimate responsibility ability for qualifying electors.”

“What Mr. Trump did was exactly constitutionally precise and in order,” he added.

“Nothing was done in a way that wasn’t constitutionally permissible,” he said. “It’s all politics. It’s all politics. And if we’re criminalizing politics, what’s going to happen when the Republicans are next in office? Think about the pressure that’s going to be put on a Republican president to go after and indict sitting Democrats now in Congress or in statehouses for their political views.”

Transcript, via FOX News:

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: We need a whiteboard for all of this. It is like planes going into La Guardia with this legal situation.

But the person who’s dealing with this case joins us now. John Lauro is former President Trump’s lead attorney on this specific case. He joins us with his first public reaction.

John, thanks for being here.

JOHN LAURO, ATTORNEY FOR FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Good evening.

BAIER: You heard what the special counsel said. You have read the indictment. Your client’s been talking about it quite a bit today on TRUTH Social.

Your thoughts on this?

LAURO: It’s a terribly tragic day that we find ourselves in, where political speech now has been criminalized, where an existing Justice Department, Merrick Garland, has a boss. His name is Joe Biden.

And Joe Biden is running against Donald Trump and losing currently. And now we have that Justice Department indicting President Trump for actions that he took as the executive — as the chief executive of the United States with respect to public policy matters.

So, now we have the criminalization and the weaponization of public policy and political speech by one political party over another. And it’s not surprising when it comes. It comes on the heels of unbelievable allegations against Mr. Biden and his son, as well as the fact that Donald Trump is leading in the polls right now.

And now we have what essentially is a regurgitation of the allegations in the January 6 report, which was highly political. It really reads no differently. So it’s really an astounding document, because, for the first time in American history, a former president is being prosecuted by a political opponent, who wields the power of the criminal justice system, for what he believed in and the policies and the political speech that he carried out as president.

This is unprecedented. It affects not just Donald Trump. It affects every American, who now realizes that the First Amendment is under assault. It’s under attack by the Biden administration. We now have a political incumbent who is attacking Americans for their beliefs, attacking Americans for their speech, and attacking Americans for their politics.

This has never happened in the history of our country, and it’s playing out right now.

BAIER: Yes, John, let me read from the indictment, and you can respond to this specifically.

It says: “The defendant lost the 2020 presidential election. Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power. So, more — for more than two months following the Election Day, November 3, 2020, the defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the defendant knew that they were false, created an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and eroded public faith in the administration of the election.”

LAURO: I would like them to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump believed that these allegations were false.

What did he see in real time? He saw changes in election procedure in the middle of the game being carried out by executive-level — people at the state level, election officials, but not the state legislatures.

He had an advice of counsel, a very detailed memorandum from a constitutional expert who said: Mr. President, these states are complaining about what happened. You, as the executive, have the ability to ask Vice President Pence to pause the vote on January 6, have these states audit and recertify, and, that way, we know ultimately who won the election.

And that’s the only thing that President Trump suggested. There’s nothing unlawful about that. He was entitled to do that, as the chief executive officer carrying out the laws, and nothing about that was obstructive.

It was quite interesting that Mr. Smith talked about the violence on Capitol Hill. He’s not being charged with that. There’s no allegation that President Trump incited any violence or did anything to cause any violence. Just the opposite. He’s being indicted for free speech.

He’s being indicted for objecting to the way that the 2020 election was carried out. And any American that takes that view should be equally concerned, are they next? Because the reality is that, if a president can be indicted for free speech, then anybody can be indicted.

So, when this case goes to trial, we’re going to be representing not just President Trump, but every single American that believes in the First Amendment and believes in your ability to redress and bring grievances to Congress.

And that’s exactly what people were doing. You had these alternate electors that said to the Congress: We have serious doubts about what happened in the 2020 election. We’re bringing these grievances to you. Listen to us.

That’s being criminalized now. Don’t forget, we had an extraordinary set…

BAIER: Yes.

LAURO: … of circumstances in 2020.

We had the COVID virus. We had laws being changed in the middle of the game. And Donald Trump had every responsibility and every right to raise these issues.

BAIER: To your point about what he believed, I talked to the former president a few weeks ago at his place in New Jersey about other things, but the 2020 election came up.

BAIER: You lost the 2020 election.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Bret, you take a look at all of the stuffed ballots, you take a look at all of the things, including things like the 51 intelligence agents.

BAIER: There were recounts in all of the swing states. There was not significant, widespread fraud.

TRUMP: Bret, we’re trying to get recounts, real recounts…

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: … number of votes cast.

BAIER: There were investigations. Widespread corruption, there was not a sense of that.

There were lawsuits, more than 50 of them, by your lawyers, some in front of judges — judges that you appointed…

TRUMP: Bret, are you ready? Look at Wisconsin.

BAIER: … that came out with no evidence.

TRUMP: Wisconsin is — Bret, Wisconsin has practically admitted it was rigged. Other states are doing the same right now. And it’s continued on. It was a rigged election.

BAIER: There have been reviews of every potential case of voter fraud in six battleground states, and they found fewer than 475 cases. It was not affected.

TRUMP: You know why? Because they didn’t look at the right things, Bret.

BAIER: OK. Are you going to…

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: My point in showing that is that he is pushing back on June 20 on that front.

John, when it says that he knew that the election was lost and it quotes people that they have interviewed, what’s the pushback to that?

LAURO: Very easy and very simple. It’s not just issues of fraud. It’s also the fact that procedures were changed, undeniably so, that procedures at the state level were changed without the ability of the legislature to weigh in.

And what President Trump was raising when he asked Vice President Pence to send it back to the state legislatures was to give the legislature in each state of those contested states one last chance to make a determination, because the reality is that the state legislatures in every state has the ultimate responsibility ability for qualifying electors.

So, what Mr. Trump did was exactly constitutionally precise and in order. There was nothing illegal about that. And he was required to take steps as president of the United States to ensure that that election was held in a valid way.

All of that now is being criminalized. The one thing I will say, though, in 2020, Mr. Trump’s campaign had a few weeks to gear up and present evidence, and it was very difficult. We now have the ability in this case to issue our own subpoenas, and we will relitigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation.

It gives President Trump an opportunity that he has never had before, which is to have subpoena power since January 6 in a way that can be exercised in federal court.

BAIER: What you’re talking about, the states, the states did that. Each individual state certified the elections. They were signed by the governors, many of them Republican governors, and many of them Republican secretaries of state, that signed off and certified those election results before they came to Washington, D.C., and we had what was January 6.

LAURO: Right.

BAIER: So, what you’re talking about was done. It was certified.

LAURO: No. No, I’m sorry, but — but you’re missing what Professor Eastman’s advice was.

Professor Eastman said that the state legislatures had not opined and weighed in on the changes that had been done in those various states. And…

BAIER: But each one of those states since that time — now we’re talking about two years later — has not reopened those cases.

They have not — some of them have had audits, but they have not reopened the 2020 election from that point of view. And some of them are Republican legislatures.

LAURO: Yes. And it’s never been presented to the states.

Now what we’re going to have is not just a civil trial, but a criminal trial for Mr. Trump exercising his right to speech. So there may be disagreement about what happened, but the bottom line is, we’re now treating this as a criminal case, rather than, as we’re doing, Bret…

BAIER: Yes.

LAURO: … talking about this in the context of politics and free speech. And — and…

BAIER: Yes. Well, let’s talk about legal for just a second, John.

LAURO: Yes.

BAIER: And you are specifically running point on this case.

And according to our legal analysts…

LAURO: Oh…

BAIER: Is that true?

LAURO: Along with Todd Blanche.

BAIER: Yes.

LAURO: Yes, we’re co-counsel on it, definitely.

BAIER: On the other cases, is it legally somebody else, like, for the documents case? Are you also on that?

LAURO: I’m not on that team. I’m concentrating on the First Amendment issues. I’m concentrating on this case, which is a direct attack on our constitutional principles, only this one.

BAIER: Will you run point in Georgia, if an indictment comes down in Georgia?

LAURO: No. No.

BAIER: Somebody else.

LAURO: Absolutely. There are other groups working on that.

Obviously, there’s coordination around the country. And all of this is being done in the middle of an election season where Donald Trump is winning. So, you have a series of criminal cases that are being brought and serially brought out on a regular basis now, with only one objective in mind, and that’s to interfere in this election cycle, which is now under way.

BAIER: What about the stories that these campaign funds are now paying for legal fees and it’s — and you’re running out of cash in that front?

LAURO: Well, I’m not involved in that.

But the bottom line is, the way that they’re trying to take out Donald Trump is through the legal process. So, he’s being forced to spend money on legal defense which should be spent on the discussion of critical ideas and critical issues. People want to hear the issues. They don’t want to relitigate 2020.

And that’s exactly what the special counsel — I should say Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland and the Biden administration had to sign off on this indictment. And what they have really done is invited now a relitigation of 2020, but this time in a criminal court, which is unprecedented.

No sitting president has ever been criminally charged for his views, for taking a position. And, by the way, is there any doubt there’s two systems of justice in the United States? Was Hillary Clinton prosecuted for the Russian hoax? Were those individuals who said, don’t worry about the Biden — the Biden laptop, because it’s just Russian disinformation, are they being prosecuted?

No. Only one person in America is being prosecuted for his political beliefs. And that should send a chill, a warning to every single American who one day wants to get up and say, this is what I believe in. I disagree with the Biden administration, but these are the beliefs I have, because every person who does that now is subject to a potential criminal case.

BAIER: Last thing.

According to this indictment, they believe that that argument would empower every losing politician to do what former President Trump did, and by using what they call in this indictment false information to stir up people, that the system then breaks down.

It’s — I’m paraphrasing, but, essentially, that’s what it says in this indictment.

LAURO: So, what they’re saying is, politicians may use hyperbolic speech or excessive speech in some way and stir up people, and we’re going to criminalize that.

Good luck in the United States, if that’s where we’re heading. Good luck, because the reality is that everything that Mr. Trump requested to be done was done with the advice of counsel, was done with lawyers giving him advice. Those lawyers are going to come in and testify.

Nothing was done in a way that wasn’t constitutionally permissible. It’s all politics. It’s all politics. And if we’re criminalizing politics, what’s going to happen when the Republicans are next in office? Think about the pressure that’s going to be put on a Republican president to go after and indict sitting Democrats now in Congress or in statehouses for their political views.

And then we have this vicious circle once the criminal justice system has been politicized.

 

Categories
Biden Cartel Crime Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Social Venues-Twitter The Law

Rep. Jim Jordan: Facebook Docs Tie WH to Censorship.

Rep. Jim Jordan: Facebook Docs Tie WH to Censorship.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, released a Twitter Files-like thread Thursday, where he revealed what he called a Facebook censorship operation by President Joe Biden’s White House.

Jordan’s “Facebook Files Part 1” alleged the White House and administration officials pressured Facebook to censor Americans with “unconstitutional” force, including work to block “a meme” about vaccination, and a Tucker Carlson video.

There are so many more tweets to this travesty.