Garland claims he must protect Biden no matter what. Refuses to release Biden Audio. As you know special prosecutor Hur reported that Biden committed crimes but decided to not prosecute because of Joe’s mental issues.
We saw Hur’s testimony and saw some of the transcript. But there were audio recordings and the DOJ refuses to give those to the House committees. This from Newsmax.
The Justice Department on Monday blasted Republicans’ effort to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt over his refusal to turn over unredacted materials related to the special counsel probe into President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents.
In a letter obtained by The Associated Press, the Justice Department rejected the demand from House Republicans that the agency turn over the full audio of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s hourslong interviews with Biden and his ghostwriter. Republicans had given the Justice Department until Monday to provide the audio.
Judge Ana Reyes delivered a memorable tongue-lashing to both sides in a hearing Friday over subpoenas to Justice Department lawyers who worked on the Hunter Biden tax probe. | Senate Judiciary Committee
Visits: 23
Winning. Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas from House GOP.
A federal judge tore into the Justice Department on Friday for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas issued in the impeachment probe of his father, President Joe Biden, pointing out that a former aide to Donald Trump is sitting in prison for similar defiance of Congress.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee on the federal District Court in Washington, spent nearly an hour accusing Justice Department attorneys of rank hypocrisy for instructing two other lawyers in the DOJ Tax Division not to comply with the House subpoenas.
“There’s a person in jail right now because you all brought a criminal lawsuit against him because he did not appear for a House subpoena,” Reyes said, referring to the recent imprisonment of Peter Navarro, a former Trump trade adviser, for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee. “And now you guys are flouting those subpoenas. … And you don’t have to show up?”
“I think it’s quite rich you guys pursue criminal investigations and put people in jail for not showing up,” but then direct current executive branch employees to take the same approach, the judge added. “You all are making a bunch of arguments that you would never accept from any other litigant.”
It was a remarkable, frenetic thrashing in what was expected to be a relatively routine, introductory status conference after the House Judiciary Committee sued last month to enforce its subpoena of DOJ attorneys Mark Daly and Jack Morgan over their involvement in the investigation of Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes.
Republicans are demanding the two attorneys testify and say it’s crucial for their ongoing impeachment probe of the elder Biden. But the Justice Department argues that subpoenaing two rank-and-file, or “line,” attorneys to seek details about an ongoing investigation would be a violation of the separation of powers.
Reyes has been on the bench for just over a year. Rarely seeming to stop to catch her breath, she repeatedly dressed down DOJ attorney James Gilligan as he sought to explain the department’s position, scolding him at times for interrupting her before continuing a torrid tongue-lashing that DOJ rarely receives from the bench.
She delved into great detail about the nuances of House procedure — like the chamber’s rule against allowing executive branch lawyers to attend depositions — and even asked whether the Judiciary Committee had followed internal rules requiring that the ranking Democrat on the panel be notified of the subpoena to the DOJ attorneys before it was issued.
Yet, perhaps even more remarkably, Reyes seemed inclined to support DOJ’s central argument that the line attorneys cannot be compelled to answer substantive questions from Congress.
They just need to show up and assert privileges on a question-by-question basis, she said — the type of thing, she said, that DOJ demands from others “seven days a week … and twice on Sunday.”
Indeed, while Reyes was withering in her attacks on the DOJ’s position, she was similarly unflinching in her criticism of the House for its stance in the dispute — particularly its claim that line lawyers working on the Hunter Biden tax probe are not entitled to attorney-client privilege.
She also said she thought it absurd for the House to argue that privilege was waived because it was obscuring some crime or fraud within the executive branch.
“I don’t think you’re going to win that fight,” the judge told House Counsel Matthew Berry, saying at one point that she “can’t imagine” ruling for the House on that issue.
At bottom, Reyes said she viewed it as unlikely that the two DOJ attorneys would ultimately be required to answer anything of substance from Congress, but that the department’s effort to prevent them from showing up at all was a brazen affront.
“I imagine that there are hundreds, if not thousands of defense attorneys … who would be happy to hear that DOJ’s position is, if you don’t agree with a subpoena, if you believe it’s unconstitutional or unlawful, you can unilaterally not show up,” the judge said.
Gilligan suggested that the employees subpoenaed in the dispute at issue are current employees, while Navarro and another Trump adviser who was convicted of similar charges, Steve Bannon, were no longer on the government’s payroll when their testimony was demanded.
The judge didn’t seem impressed with that distinction and downplayed the significance of a Trump-era Office of Legal Counsel opinion contending that executive branch employees could defy such subpoenas if Justice Department lawyers were not allowed to be present. “Last time I checked, the Office of Legal Counsel was not the court,” she said.
Reyes also sounded stunned when Gilligan refused to commit to instructing the two subpoenaed lawyers to show up if the House dropped its objection to allowing government counsel to sit in the room. “It would be a different situation,” Gilligan said. “I cannot answer that now. ”Are you kidding me?” the judge responded.
Reyes ultimately ordered the Justice Department to send lawyers to the Capitol next week to confer with Berry and attempt to hammer out a workable agreement. And she said that if the two sides did not work out a deal, she planned to require them to estimate the total cost to the taxpayers of continuing the legal fight, which past precedent suggests could drag out for years.
“I don’t think the taxpayers want to fund a grudge match between the executive and the legislative,” she said. “Bad cases make bad law. … This is a bad, bad case for both of you.”
FDA admits defeat. Boxes of the drug Ivermectin
Dimas Ardian/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Visits: 20
Winning. FDA war on Ivermectin may be over. Back in 2022 a lawsuit was filed against the FDA for their derogatory comments on Ivermectin. Doctors were prescribing human doses but the FDA made it look as if the doses were the horse or cow doses. Even posted this on a phony website they created.
Well the FDA won the first round. But then this happened.
Fifth Circuit sides with ivermectin-prescribing doctors in their quarrel with the FDA
The Food and Drug Administration is not a physician, so it had no business cautioning people not to take ivermectin to ward off Covid-19 infections with social media posts stating, “You are not a horse,” the Fifth Circuit said.
So when it was sent back, the FDA gave in. Here’s what they agreed to.
The FDA agreed to delete the Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts from August 21, 2021 that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” (A screencap of the X/twitter one is above and still online here.)
It will also remove the Twitter post (below) from April 26, 2022 that reads, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending.
Further, the FDA will delete all other social media posts on FDA accounts that link to its website called “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”
It will “retire” this website (called a consumer update) originally posted on March 5, 2021 and revised on September 7, 2021. The FDA retains the right to post a revised update.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling that states cannot kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.
In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
The provision prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various offices.
The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or other candidate for federal office is ineligible.
The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar people running for state office from appearing on the ballot under Section 3.
By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection.
The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.
Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, “Big win for America!!!”
Grassley’s office was approached in relation to his July release. His team told Newsweek the indictment “confirms several points Senator Grassley has made repeatedly.” Grassley also said the Justice Department should release “all the underlying evidence” in the Biden investigation. Newsweek has approached the DOJ for comment.
‘A Rigged Trial’ Judge Orders Trump, Executives to Pay More Than $350 Million
This judge — who infamously declared Trump guilty before the trial had even started — proved this was all an attempt to tie up Trump and punish anyone who is associated with him. No bank or any other entity lost money due to fraud, so where is the crime?
New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron issued a ruling on Feb. 16, ordering former President Donald Trump and Trump Organization executives to pay $355 million in damages, and barring the former president from doing business in the state for three years.
The ruling also modified a previous order to cancel Trump Organization business certificates in a move widely criticized as a “corporate death blow.”
“As detailed herein, this Court now finds defendants liable, continues the appointment of an Independent Monitor, orders the installation of an Independent Director of Compliance, and limits defendants’ right to conduct business in New York for a few years,” the judge wrote.
“This Court finds that defendants are likely to continue their fraudulent ways unless the Court grants significant injunctive relief.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James brought the case against President Donald Trump and the Trump Organization in September 2022, and the trial began on Oct. 2, 2023.
The judge granted most of what the attorney general had asked for in injunctive relief but, in a major departure from the recommended relief, did not permanently ban President Trump from doing business in New York.
This IMHO was an attempt on Engoron’s part to “prove” he wasn’t biased against Trump from the get-go. — TPR
Trump Organization executives are ordered to pay $355 million with backdated interest.
Wait, what? Trump “overvalued” his holdings and now has to pay taxes –with interest, no less– where the state claims the assets were worth LESS than Trump claimed??? Shouldn’t that be that they owe HIM money? I must be missing something here. –TPR
Former Trump Organization executives Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney are permanently banned from doing business in New York.
“The evidence is overwhelming that Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney cannot be entrusted with controlling the finances of any business,” the judge ordered.
Mr. Weisselberg, Mr. McConney, and President Trump are banned from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or legal entity for three years. Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. cannot serve as such for two years.
President Trump and his companies cannot apply for loans from any financial institution chartered by or registered in New York for three years.
This would effectively bar President Trump from doing business in the state for three years.
Former Judge Barbara Jones will continue to monitor the Trump Organization for at least three years and will send a proposal to the court in 30 days outlining what authority she needs to effectively serve as an independent monitor.
Another independent director of compliance will be installed at the Trump Organization, paid for by the defendants, to “ensure compliance with financial reporting obligations and to establish internal written accounting and financial reporting protocols.” Ms. Jones will make a list of recommended persons for the position within 30 days.
Justice Engoron wrote in his order that the ruling is intended to “protect the integrity of the financial marketplace and, thus, the public as a whole.”
He added that ongoing monitorship is necessary because the defendants have testified they do not believe changes need to be made.
Ms. James issued a statement on the ruling through a series of X, formerly Twitter, posts outlining the penalties.
“Today, justice has been served,” she wrote in her last post. “This is a major win for everyone who believes that we must all play by the same rules. No matter how big, how rich, or how powerful you are, no one is above the law. Not even Donald Trump.”
President Trump also posted a lengthy social media statement, and then called a press conference in front of his Mar-a-Lago residence.
“This ‘decision’ is a Complete and Total SHAM,” he wrote. “There were No Victims, No Damages, No Complaints. Only satisfied Banks and Insurance Companies (which made a ton of money), GREAT Financial Statements, that didn’t even include the most valuable Asset – the TRUMP Brand, IRONCLAD Disclaimers (Buyer Beware, and Do you Own Due Diligence), and amazing Properties all over the World.”
No Cancellation of Business Certificates, For Now
The judge vacated his September 2023 order to cancel the Trump Organization business certificates, and decided instead that this penalty could be applied later at the recommendation of the monitor or “based on substantial evidence.”
Again, this, IMHO, was an attempt on Engoron’s part to “prove” he wasn’t biased against Trump from the get-go. — TPR
“Going forward there will be two-tiered oversight, an Independent Monitor and an Independent Director of Compliance, of the major activities that could lead to fraud, cancellation of the business licenses is no longer necessary,” the judge ordered.
These are outsiders (and certainly anti-Trump) — which Trump has to pay for — whose sole goal is to hamstring Trump businesses as much as possible. — TPR
“The restructuring and potential dissolution of any LLCs shall be subject to individual review by the Court appointed Independent Director of Compliance in consultation with Judge Jones.”
The brainwashing of our youth – by social media corporations is out of control. Unfortunately, for all of us – it isn’t going to stop.
“We know best. We are going to remake the world. We are going to reshape kids around the world”
The government has a remedy for this type of unlawful business practice. The 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act has bee utilized many times to break up monopolies. The Sherman Act outlaws:
“every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.”
Google is out of control. They have not only monopolized the internet, they have monopolized the control of advertising. Both business strategies are being challenged by the DOJ in two separate lawsuits. Meta is also being sued for unfair business practices, as it has gobbled up its competitors in a series of buy-outs.
Or you might be watching MSM exclusively and using Google as your search engine.
If I had one bill, one page. Prevailing wage. Page 2. I would propose a bill that would do away with prevailing wage. Prevailing wage is a law that pays workers the region’s standards for hourly wages, benefits, and overtime, as calculated by the U.S. Department of Labor and Ohio Department of Commerce.
The overtime would stay, but companies would not be forced to pay a set high standard and would not be forced to be union. Example if a Union company is paying on average say $35.00 an hour, and a non Union company is paying $ 20.00 an hour, you go with the non union company.
The law would read. Any local or state that uses prevailing wage, undocumented workers or states the job needs to be done by union workers would be denied federal funds for that project.
Why are we surprised? It’s California. Test scores fall. I was always taught that you went to school to learn how to read and write. But one school in the San Francisco school system is teaching hate, racism, and bigotry. So, what about the basics?
Just 3.8% of students were proficient in math and 11.6% at grade-level in English for the 2022-23 school year — a decline of about 4.5 percentage points in each category from the previous year, according to data from the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. In plain English, they got worse. One reason why.
Student achievement at a San Francsico-area elementary school fell dramatically following the establishment of a woke teaching policy through a $250,000 federal grant.
Two years into a three-year contract with Woke Kindergarten, a for-profit company that trains teachers to confront white supremacy, disrupt racism and oppression, and remove those barriers to learning, test scores in English and math at Glassbrook Elementary in Hayward, California, reached new lows, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Saturday.
Tiger Craven-Neeley, a teacher at Glassbrook, told the Chronicle he supports discussing racism in the classroom but found the Woke Kindergarten training confusing and rigid. He said he was told a primary objective was to “disrupt whiteness” in the school — and that the sessions were “not a place to express white guilt.”
Craven-Neeley, who is white and a self-described “gay moderate,” said he questioned a trainer who used the phrasing “so-called United States,” as well as lessons available on the organization’s website offering “Lil’ Comrade Convos,” or positing a world without police, money, or landlords. He said he wasn’t trying to be difficult when he asked for clarification about disrupting whiteness.
54
