Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for March, 2024

The “Perversity” of Michael Cohen: Federal Judge Denounces Cohen as a Serial Perjurer


JonathanTurley.org | March 21, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/21/the-perversity-of-michael-cohen-federal-judge-denounces-cohen-as-a-serial-perjurer/

C-Span/YouTube Screenshot

Michael Cohen was back in court this week and it did not go well.  The former fixer for Donald Trump was in court seeking a reduction in his federal sentence and to answer for his use of Google’s AI chatbot to submit arguments with fake case authority. However, things went off the rails when his counsel cited his prior testimony as evidence of his rehabilitation. U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman called the argument “perverse” and noted that Cohen is clearly a serial perjurer and cited the need for continued “deterrence.” That is hardly a promising review before Cohen appears as the star witness for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in the prosecution of former president Donald Trump.

If lying were an art form, former Trump fixer Michael Cohen would be its Rembrandt.

Throughout his career, the disbarred lawyer has found powerful clients who valued his reputation for supporting any side that offered the biggest payback.

For full disclosure, I have been a critic of Cohen for years, including columns when he was still representing Trump.

Cohen has been repeatedly accused of perjury. For example, after Cohen turned on Trump, he went from being a pariah to a hero for many Democrats. Yet, he continued the same pattern. When he was called before the House to testify against Trump soon after his plea agreement with the Justice Department, Cohen was again accused of perjury:

The House Oversight Committee chairman, Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, began his questioning by noting that he told him that he had better testify truthfully this time or be nailed to the cross. “Didn’t I tell you that?” Cummings asked. “Yes, you did, more than once,” Cohen replied.

Then Cohen went forward and claimed he had cared nothing about jobs or pardons from Donald Trump. However, a number of news organizations reported that Cohen was upset after lobbying for the White House counsel, chief of staff, or other jobs in the administration. Despite a multitude of such sources, Cohen has insisted, “I was extremely proud to be the personal attorney for the president of the United States of America. I did not want to go to the White House. I was offered jobs.” There is little ambiguity here. Either multiple witnesses lied, or Cohen once again lied to Congress.

Then Cohen stated, “I have never asked for, nor would I accept, a pardon from President Trump.” That also directly contradicts multiple sources who say his lawyer pressed the White House for a pardon, and that Cohen unsuccessfully sought a presidential pardon after FBI raids on his office and residences last year. (Roughly a month later, he decided to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller.).

Even after being stripped of his bar license and sentenced to three years in prison, Cohen continued the pattern. In 2019, Cohen failed to appear to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing the inability to travel due to a medical surgery. However, he was seen partying before the hearing date with five friends with no apparent problems.

Even in jail, Cohen was accused of lying to a court in violation of an order for early release due to medical problems. He was ordered back into custody after being spotted at a high-end restaurant.

After Cohen admitted to various criminal acts in federal court to secure his plea agreement, he then declared that he lied. In his 2018 guilty plea before U.S. District Judge William Henry Pauley III, Cohen admitted to this conduct under oath.

Cohen was later asked by Trump counsel “Did you lie to Judge Pauley when you said that you were guilty of the counts that you said under oath that you were guilty of? Did you lie to Judge Pauley?”

Cohen matter-of-factly responded “yes.”  He was then again asked “So you lied when you said that you evaded taxes to a judge under oath; is that correct?” He again responded “yes.”

Despite just admitting to a federal crime of perjury, the Justice Department and specifically the Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office declined to prosecute.

Cohen was useful again and had found powerful allies who valued his curious skill set of being able to say anything at any time to help his patrons.

One judge, however, had had enough. In his court order, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman stated:

“It gives rise to two possibilities: one, Cohen committed perjury when he pleaded guilty before Judge Pauley or, two, Cohen committed perjury in his October 2023 testimony. Either way, it is perverse to cite the testimony, as Schwartz did, as evidence of Cohen’s ‘commitment to upholding the law.’”

He went on to criticize Cohen’s other lawyer, E. Danya Perry, in trying to excuse his perjury:

“These efforts to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse fall flat. Cohen’s testimony was not, as Perry contends, a ‘clumsy’ or ‘poorly worded’ attempt to argue that… the government abused its prosecutorial discretion in charging those crimes. To the contrary, he unambiguously testified that he ‘didn’t’ commit tax evasion and that he ‘lied’ to Judge Pauley when he said that he had…Moreover, when given multiple opportunities to retreat from or clarify that testimony later, he stuck to his guns.”

He added that

“Specifically, Cohen repeatedly and unambiguously testified at the state court trial that he was not guilty of tax evasion and that he had lied under oath to Judge Pauley when he pleaded guilty to those crimes…This testimony is more troubling than the statements that Cohen had previously made in his book and on television — statements that the Court had specifically cited in denying Cohen’s third motion for early termination of supervised release… because it was given under oath…Either way, it is perverse to cite the testimony, as Schwartz did, as evidence of Cohen’s ‘commitment to upholding the law.’”

Indeed, that is the unique perversity of Michael Cohen. He has continued to game the system and play the media to his own advantage. Even admitting perjury on the stand did not produce a criminal charge. He has found new allies who need his unique ability to support their cause without the burden of accuracy or veracity.

What will be truly amazing is to see Bragg call Cohen to the stand in light of this record. Bragg’s weak criminal case will turn in great part on a serial liar and disbarred lawyer. Defense counsel need only read from past transcripts to establish a self-impeaching record of contradictions and lies. For Bragg to present Cohen as credible is incredible, particularly given this latest finding in 2024 by a federal judge. It is hard to present a witness as a redemptive sinner when he does not have a single redemptive moment to show a jury.

None of this may matter to a New York jury. Cohen learned long ago that you need to know your audience. No one looks to Michael Cohen for the truth. They look to him to say what needs to be said to rationalize a result. What is most perverse about Michael Cohen is the continued perverse need for Michael Cohen.

N.B.: Cohen responded to a tweet yesterday where I incorrectly referenced Judge Pauley rather than Judge Furman. I later deleted the tweet. Cohen however objected “Wrong you idiot (@JonathanTurley). Judge Pauley didn’t make the statement, Judge Jesse Furman did.” Indeed, you are right Michael, I did confuse the two names on X. It was Judge Furman who called you a perjurer. Of course, I have long admitted to being a serial offender of “Twitter” typos. That is bad but it is not quite as bad as being accused of being a serial perjurer.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Threat to the Republic

A.F. BRANCO | on March 21, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-threat-to-the-republic/

Democrats Despise the Constitution
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

SCOTUS Justice Kentanji Brown Jacson is more proof the left hates the constitution and the limits it places on the government, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendment – Free speech and gun rights. The entire reason for the constitution is to keep a tyrannical government in check against we the people.

JUST IN: US Supreme Court Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson Just Defended The US Government Violating the 1st Amendment During Arguments in Case Sen Rand Paul Calls “the most consequential free speech case in U.S. history”

By Patty McMurray  March 18, 2024

This afternoon, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) tweeted about today’s US Supreme Court case (Murthy v. Missouri) that involves several plaintiffs, including The Gateway Pundit, who have been harmed by censorship by the government and big tech. READ MORE…

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Top Stories
Trump Plans New List of 20 Potential Conservative Supreme Court Nominees
Joe Biden’s Budget Would Eliminate Hyde Amendment, Make Americans Fund Abortions Up to Birth
Harvard Law Journal Article Concludes Unborn Babies Have Constitutional Rights
3,000 Women Injured by Abortion Pills Tell Supreme Court to Warn Women of Abortion’s Risks

More Pro-Life News
Pro-Life Republican Bernie Moreno Wins Ohio Senate Primary
Democrats Beg Justice Sonia Sotomayor to Retire Now So Biden Can Replace Her With Another Leftist
Joe Biden Thinks Killing Unborn Babies in Abortions is “Freedom”
Abortion is a Winning Issue for Republicans Because Americans Oppose Abortions Up to Birth
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Trump Plans New List of 20 Potential Conservative Supreme Court Nominees

Joe Biden’s Budget Would Eliminate Hyde Amendment, Make Americans Fund Abortions Up to Birth

Harvard Law Journal Article Concludes Unborn Babies Have Constitutional Rights

3,000 Women Injured by Abortion Pills Tell Supreme Court to Warn Women of Abortion’s Risks


 

Pro-Life Republican Bernie Moreno Wins Ohio Senate Primary

 

Democrats Beg Justice Sonia Sotomayor to Retire Now So Biden Can Replace Her With Another Leftist

Joe Biden Thinks Killing Unborn Babies in Abortions is “Freedom”

Abortion is a Winning Issue for Republicans Because Americans Oppose Abortions Up to Birth

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Here is What Trump Should Do on Abortion to Win the Election

Pop Star Olivia Rodrigo Uses Her Platform to Promote Killing Babies in Abortions

Pro-Life Advocates Save 16 Babies From Abortion at Controversial Abortion Biz

68 Cities are Now “Sanctuaries for the Unborn” That Protect Babies From Abortion

Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.

Pharmacist Condemns Chemical Abortion Pill: “Isn’t a Medication at All”

Adoption is Expensive and Complicated. We Need to Make It Easier for Families to Adopt Children

The Abortion Pill is Killing Millions of Babies and Injuring Thousands of Women

New Estimate Shows More Than 1 Million Babies Killed in Abortions in 2023

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.

Google ‘interfered’ 41 times in US elections to help ‘left-wing’ candidates: Watchdog group


By: CANDACE HATHAWAY | MARCH 19, 2024

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/google-interfered-41-times-in-us-elections-to-help-left-wing-candidates-watchdog-group-2667551417.html/

Over the last 16 years, Google has interfered in American elections 41 times, according to a March report from watchdog group Media Research Center.

MRC Free Speech America researchers recently released a new report titled “41 Times Google Has Interfered in U.S. Elections Since 2008,” which revealed instances when the technology giant allegedly boosted left-leaning candidates and censored opponents. MRC founder and President Brent Bozell stated, “Google’s massive and deliberate efforts to interfere in U.S. elections for the past 16 years is unacceptable and the biggest threat to American democracy today.”

The watchdog group noted that Google’s “impact has surged dramatically,” claiming the company’s interference has continued to ramp up over the years.

“In every case, Google harmed the candidates — regardless of party — who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice,” the report’s executive summary read. “From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public: That Google uses its ‘great strength and resources and reach’ to advance its leftist values.”

MRC alleged that Google helped then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) secure a win over then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the 2008 primary race by censoring blog writers who supported Clinton. The tech giant propelled Obama to victory again in 2012 against then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R).

“In 2016, Google pushed Clinton, using its algorithm to exclude potentially damaging autofill results while not doing the same for then-candidates Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders,” the report found.

The watchdog group also stated that Google censored former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) by disabling her Ads account. Google denied the claim, saying that its automated system detected unusual spending activity and that the issue was resolved within six hours, the New York Post reported.

MRC accused the tech company of suppressing media stories critical of President Joe Biden and blocking Republican fundraising emails.

Google’s artificial intelligence program, Gemini, reportedly refused to answer Biden’s “biggest weaknesses.”

“In 2022, Google buried most Republican campaign websites for the 12 competitive Senate races (10 of 12 did not make the top 6 search results and 7 did not even make the first page of search results). Also, 61 percent of the stories included on the Google News homepage linked to leftist news media outlets,” the report added.

So far this year, MRC discovered that Google has buried the search results for Biden’s top opponents, including Trump and independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

According to the watchdog organization, the tech giant is “making good on its 2016 promise never to let conservatives win again.”

MRC is encouraging House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to open an investigation into Google based on the report’s findings. The organization claims the company violated the American public’s constitutional rights. The organization also called on citizens to stop using Google products and opt for other alternatives.

Google denies the claims made in MRC’s report.

“There is absolutely nothing new here — just a recycled list of baseless, inaccurate complaints that have been debunked by third parties and many that failed in the courts,” a company spokesperson told the Post.

“Politicians on the left have a long history of making similar claims, too,” the spokesperson continued. “We have a clear business incentive to keep everyone using our products, so we have no desire to make them biased or inaccurate and have safeguards in place to ensure this.”

“Numerous conservatives have been particularly successful in using our platforms to spread their message to a wide audience,” the Google representative added.

Business Partners Confirm Joe Biden Was Part of Family’s Influence-Selling


BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE AND JORDAN BOYD | MARCH 20, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/20/business-partners-confirm-joe-biden-was-part-of-familys-influence-selling/

Tony Bobulinski oversight hearing

Author Tristan Justice and Jordan Boyd profile

TRISTAN JUSTICE AND JORDAN BOYD

MORE ARTICLES

House Republicans heard explosive testimony from President Joe Biden’s family business partners Wednesday in a public hearing that confirmed the president’s personal involvement in global schemes to sell influence over American government.

Tony Bobulinski, a former family business partner turned whistleblower who told lawmakers President Biden was the “brand” sold to foreign governments, doubled down on accusations of corruption with sworn testimony in public.

“I want to be crystal clear: from my direct personal experience and what I have subsequently come to learn, it is clear to me that Joe Biden was ‘the brand’ being sold by the Biden family,” Bobulinski told lawmakers. “His family’s foreign influence peddling operation — from China to Ukraine and elsewhere — sold out to foreign actors who were seeking to gain influence and access to Joe Biden and the United States government.”

Lawmakers featured Bobulinski alongside Jason Galanis after closed-door depositions with the two witnesses. Devon Archer, another former business partner, and Hunter Biden also sat for closed-door depositions with House committees, but turned down congressional invites to testify in public.

His attorneys previously demanded a public hearing in exchange for Hunter Biden’s cooperation with congressional subpoenas. Then Biden attorney Abbe Lowell suddenly demanded lawmakers hold a public hearing to probe the business practices of his former client, Jared Kushner, potentially violating legal ethics rules. If House Republicans held a public hearing with Kushner, Lowell wrote in a letter last week, “Mr. Biden would consider an invitation for that event.”

House Republicans are probing whether to draw up articles of impeachment against President Biden for selling the use of his political positions to foreign oligarchs. House investigators have discovered more than 20 shell companies established by the Biden family to funnel tens of millions of dollars from corporate leaders from adversarial nations. Witnesses testified Wednesday that President Biden was at the center of the family’s efforts to rake in foreign profits.

“The Bidens sell Joe Biden. That is their business,” said James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee at the beginning of the hearing on “Influence Peddling: Examining Joe Biden’s Abuse of Public Office.”

Testifying from prison, Galanis said the Bidens aimed to make “billions, not millions” from selling political favors to oligarchs in China and Russia. Galanis is currently serving a 14-year prison sentence for securities fraud, which Galanis told lawmakers last month also involved Archer and Hunter Biden.

Democrat Obstruction

Democrats spent Wednesday’s hearing attempting to obstruct the impeachment proceedings with repeated interruptions to insist Republicans have no proof of influence peddling claims they have “exonerated” the president. Their handpicked witness Lev Parnas, also a convicted criminal, even went so far as to claim he “found precisely zero evidence of the Bidens’ corruption in Ukraine.”

On the contrary, House and Senate investigators have uncovered bank receiptsWhite House visitor logstestimonies from Biden business partnerstext messages, and other documents indicating the Biden family sold their patriarch’s name and position to foreign oligarchs including several in Ukraine. Yet Democrats pressed forward with a stunt campaign to delay, disrupt, and dismiss the hearing. When members heard about text messages about the Biden family business on Bobulinski’s cracked Blackberry phone, Democrats, led by Raskin, introduced a motion to subpoena the device.

Bobulinski previously offered to show the text messages to members who wanted to see them, so Jordan quickly countered with a motion to table. Comer agreed but was forced to wait for a clerk to record a formal vote before proceeding.

To Democrats’ dismay, members’ recorded votes tallied up in favor of tabling.

After the minutes-long delay, Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia asked Bobulinski whether he would turn over his phone to the committee.

“I’m willing to sit in a room with the chairman and the ranking member with my phone and their staff and we can go through each and every text message,” Bobulinski said.

New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez later asked Bobulinski whether he witnessed the president commit a crime, to which Bobulinski answered with an emphatic “Yes.”

“What crime?” Cortez pressed.

“Well, how much time do I have to go through?” Bobulinski answered.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour.

Record-High Gas Prices Don’t Bother Biden Because They Restrict Your Use Of Energy


BY: JORDAN BOYD | MARCH 20, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/20/record-high-gas-prices-dont-bother-biden-because-they-restrict-your-use-of-energy/

Gas station pump

Author Jordan Boyd profile

JORDAN BOYD

VISIT ON TWITTER@JORDANBOYDTX

MORE ARTICLES

You wouldn’t know it from White House press releases, but Americans are paying roughly 45 percent more at the pump now than before President Joe Biden first took office. Anyone looking to take a quick weekend getaway or spring break outing in the coming days will pay an average of $3.51 per gallon to gas up their vehicles. Roadtrippers and commuters in states such as California are the hardest hit, paying upwards of $4.93 per gallon. Even notoriously cheap states for gas such as Texas still have Americans shelling out far more than $3 per gallon.

“Gas price inflation is back,” CNN, one of the few corporate media publications mentioning the price surge, noted at the beginning of its latest article on fuel. The Daily Mail repeated the same phrase in a recent headline.

The truth is, gas price inflation never left. Prices at the pump are definitively higher now than they were one year ago.

One might think that Biden, who is already lagging in presidential polls for the upcoming election, would do everything in his power to fix the problem because his campaign team knows Americans vote with their pocketbooks. Yet the Biden administration has adopted rhetoric about a so-called “dip” in the cost of unleaded from 2022 records to claim that inflation isn’t as bad or as Democrat-inflicted as it is.

This week, as the cost to fill a car climbs daily, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre went so far as to brag that the “actions that [Biden] took led to lowering gas prices.”

On Friday, she attributed the “fall” in record-high prices to President Joe Biden’s “unprecedented actions” on oil.

“We saw gas prices go down,” she repeated.

The White House, with the help of corporate media, has long touted “cooling” prices to flood the airwaves with propaganda seeking to obscure the nation’s dire economic conditions. Yet, as with every other category of inflation, gas costs have never technically stopped climbing since Biden’s entrance in 2021. Even when the price of unleaded varied slightly from the record high that plagued Biden’s first few presidential years thanks to his unfriendly oil and gas policies, the cost of filling up a car has remained steadily high.

The White House will do its best to cover up its role in the inflation crisis wreaking havoc on the country, but will stop short of enacting a real solution. The administration won’t lift any of its policies exacerbating high gas prices because jarring costs at the pump don’t necessary conflict with the administration’s goals.

The Biden administration openly desires to use chronically high gas prices to usher in electric vehicles and weather-dependent energy.

[Why Is Joe Biden Screwing Seniors To Subsidize Electric Vehicles?]


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Exclusive: Jordan Tells CISA To Fork Over Docs About Its Collusion with Pennsylvania to Target Election Speech


BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | MARCH 20, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/20/exclusive-jordan-tells-cisa-to-fork-over-docs-about-collusion-with-pennsylvania-to-target-election-speech/

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan sent a letter Wednesday to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Administration (CISA) — which has been called the “nerve center” of government censorship — notifying the agency that documents related to CISA’s partnership with Pennsylvania to target so-called “misinformation” are included in the Judiciary Committee’s ongoing subpoena, according to a copy of the letter obtained exclusively by The Federalist.

Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro recently announced the state’s Election Task Force would partner with CISA’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to “mitigate threats to the election process, protect voters from intimidation, and provide voters with accurate, trusted election information.”

The Pennsylvania State Department revealed to The Federalist that the state would also be partnering with CISA to “open lines of communication and share intelligence among the included government agencies.” The State Department did not clarify what “intelligence” refers to or what will be done with said information.

Jordan demanded the DHS provide more detailed information on the partnership by April 3.

“The Committee on the Judiciary is conducting oversight of how and to what extent the Executive Branch has coerced or colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor lawful speech,” the letter reads. “In light of recent public reporting that the [CISA] has partnered with at least one state government in a way that may target Americans’ speech online in the lead-up to the upcoming 2024 election, we write to notify you that documents about such partnerships are responsive to the Committee’s April 28, 2023 subpoena.”

Jim Jordan sends letter to … by The Federalist

“The reporting about a partnership between CISA and the Pennsylvania Election Threats Task Force reinforces concerns that CISA is again partnering with third parties in a way that will censor or chill Americans’ speech,” Jordan wrote.

“The government’s involvement in this type of speech is particularly alarming because, as the Supreme Court has recognized, ‘the importance of First Amendment protections is at its zenith’ for ‘core political speech,’” the letter continued.

[READ NEXT: Government Censorship Op Targeted The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway, Sean Davis During 2020 Election]

Shapiro said the task force would “combat misinformation” but CISA, the DHS subagency which congressional Republicans have called the “nerve center” of federal censorship, has a history of targeting Americans and their free speech by smearing it as “misinformation” or “malformation.” CISA defines “malinformation” as anything “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

In other words, CISA has censored Americans for stating true information. For example, America First Legal obtained documents showing CISA created a six-point list in October 2020 warning of the risks of unsupervised mail-in voting. Publicly, however, the weaponized agency flagged social media posts highlighting those concerns as “disinformation” for Big Tech companies to censor.

CISA partnered with consulting firm Deloitte and asked for notifications of social media trends about “narratives relating to ‘Vote-By-Mail’ — and to flag specific social media posts for CISA’s awareness and attention.”

One of the posts Deloitte flagged was an October 2020 tweet from then-President Donald Trump in which he claimed there were “Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA.”


Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

MORE ARTICLES

Repeal Wasteful $27 Billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Slush) Fund


By: Miles Pollard / March 20, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/20/repeal-wasteful-27-billion-greenhouse-gas-reduction-slush-fund/

Steam—not a greenhouse gas—rising from heating system vents surrounds the U.S. Capitol Dome on a chilly Feb. 7 morning. (Photo: J. David Ake/Getty Images)

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is set to vote this week on the possible repeal of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which hasn’t been distributed yet. That taxpayer-funded giveaway to the ailing solar industry and environmental nongovernmental organizations lacks both sufficient accountability and utility. The fund is structured to pick winners and losers in the energy market, to subsidize Chinese companies that use forced labor, and to undermine the reliability of the power grid.

As Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, said at an Axios clean energy roundtable on Tuesday, “When we’ve picked, we lose.”

The fund’s $27 billion would allocate grants only for renewable energy projects, which would disadvantage conventional energy producers (including nuclear), raise consumer costs, and create a slush fund for green special interests. All of this is in addition to the solar industry’s $37 billion in federal subsidies received between 2016 and 2022.

Since these tax subsidies largely benefit those with incomes high enough to install solar panels and benefit from the tax breaks, working-class and minority Americans have disproportionately shouldered the increased electricity prices that come from the cost of building out renewables and transmission infrastructure. In California alone, Pacific Gas and Electric rates have increased 127% over the past 10 years.

Some—such as Jennifer Hernandez, a leading environmental litigator in California who also teaches land use and environmental law at the University of California and Stanford Law School—equate these policies to a Green Jim Crow.

Additionally, Donna Jackson of the National Center for Public Policy Research testified before Congress that “creating higher energy costs is increasingly keeping [renters] out of homeownership.”

California, the state with the largest percentage of solar capacity, has residents who pay more than 29 cents per kilowatt-hour, almost double the state average of 16 cents per kilowatt-hour.  The fund intends to distribute $7 billion to select disadvantaged communities for solar panels, but even communities that do not receive grants see increased electricity prices.

Communities that would receive subsidized solar panels might be unable to sell excess electricity back to the grid. The Energy Information Administration has reported that, due to transmission line overload, California’s primary grid operator cut off or curtailed a record 2.4 million megawatt-hours of utility-scale wind and solar output in 2022, a 63% increase from 2021.

Additionally, due to payout restructuring from the California Public Utilities Commission, residential solar owners must now include the cost of transmission, leading to 75% of California rooftop-solar companies being at a high risk of bankruptcy. Already, more than 100 solar companies declared bankruptcy in 2023 as rooftop-solar sales are down between 66% and 83% since 2022.

Silicon Valley Bank, which financed 60% of those community solar deals and banked billions of dollars on these green investments, underwent a banking crisis and restructuring. Furthermore, even if these community projects fail, recipients have no obligation to return the funds.

To add insult to injury, 80% of solar components are coming from China. As such, solar panels purchased by the fund will help finance the Chinese Communist Party’s forced labor of Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyzs, and Tibetans.

Congress passed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act to stop slave labor from subsidizing the solar industry’s supply chain. However, a Commerce Department investigation found that companies are circumventing the act. Chinese companies are shipping solar panels to other Southeast Asian countries and then sending solar components on to America with false-origin paperwork.

Despite these findings, the Biden administration resumed importation from these illegal supply-chain products to continue the subsidy-fueled build-out of the U.S. solar industry. Moreover, the potential misuse of these funds is deeply concerning as politically favored projects of questionable viability are particularly suspected of funding mischief.

One can only hope that extremist environmental nonprofits such as the Climate Emergency Fund—supporters of which recently poured red powder on the U.S. Constitution and interrupted a conference at The Heritage Foundation in the name of climate change—will not be indirectly financed by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

Furthermore, America has removed Chinese solar backup batteries from military bases due to security concerns. Importing compromised Chinese batteries, solar inverters, or synchronizers would be detrimental to national security.

If the Biden administration wanted ethical sourcing of solar panels and related material, it would allow for domestic extraction of the critical component minerals, reducing domestic dependence on authoritarian suppliers and creating American jobs.

America needs affordable, reliable, and secure energy sources. By repealing this fund, Congress, with HR 1023, can demonstrate its commitment to maintaining fiscal prudence, establishing a competitive and stable energy market, blocking financing of CCP forced labor, and supporting people who want affordable electricity rates in inflationary times.

Eat the Rich: Warren Plan Would Impose Wealth Tax, Captivity Tax, and $100 Billion for Increasing Tax Audits


Jonathan Turley.org | March 20, 24

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/20/eat-the-rich-warren-plan-would-impose-wealth-tax-captivity-tax-and-100-billion-for-increasing-tax-audits/

The wealth tax is back.  We have previously discussed the constitutional and policy concerns surrounding the push by Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) to introduce a wealth tax that would start with billionaires. It would not likely end there. The law would also apply the same type of California approach to wealthy families fleeing the tax grab with a huge “exit tax” so that there is no escaping from tax vortex. In addition, under the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, Warren and others would add $100 billion to increase tax audit and investigations.

The captivity tax highlights the wealth-redistribution mindset underlying Warren’s “experiment.” Warren thrilled audiences for years by telling the rich she was coming after “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.” In one Democratic debate, she got applause by rubbing her hands together after stating that she would take some of the wealth of fellow candidate John Delaney, a self-made millionaire worth $65 million. She has now made good on that threat.

The reintroduction of Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act would add a 2% tax on households worth $50 million to $1 billion and a 3% tax on households worth more than $1 billion.

Warren is again repeating that talking point of President Joe Biden that billionaires pay less than the average citizen in taxes. That has been repeatedly challenged. The claim is based on dubious accounting. A commonly cited White House study from September, 2021 included unrealized capital gains in its analysis – something that neither wealthy nor middle class citizens are taxed on. Warren and Biden want that to change but it is a false measure on the current tax burden.

It is also worth noting that “the top 1 percent’s income share rose from 22.2 percent in 2020 to 26.3 percent in 2021 and its share of federal income taxes paid rose from 42.3 percent to 45.8 percent.”  The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent federal income taxes,. The bottom 50 percent paid the only 2.3 percent.

We previously discussed the push in California to impose a retroactive tax on the many citizens and companies fleeing that state due to its high taxes and other problems. Warren wants to do the same nationally. So, if businesses are fleeing the country due to these policies, they would have to essentially pay for the freedom in a type of captivity tax.  It is incredibly short-sighted.  We need these businesses, and we will not be able to coerce them into saying by trying to make it more expensive to leave. Indeed, the captivity tax only magnifies the impression of a tax system that is becoming an extension of the eat-the-rich rhetoric used by Warren and others.

Politicians have long turned to the “Eat the rich!” battle cry when things are not working out politically or economically. When struggling in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) pledged a wealth taxdeclaring that she was coming after “the diamonds, the yachts, and the Rembrandts too.” Then-New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, another Democratic contender at the time, was barely registering in the polls when he promised that “we will tax the hell out of the wealthy.”

The Warren proposal would turn the eat-you-rich rhetoric to an all-you-can eat tax plan for the government.

There are major constitutional concerns raised by the plan to tax unrealized capital gains. However, this is clearly playing well with much of the base of the party.

The Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania did find that Warren’s legislation would raise $2.7 trillion in revenue but it would also reduce capital by 3.1%, depress average hourly wages by 1.2% and reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 1.2% in 2050.

Judge Jackson’s ‘chilling’ First Amendment comments leave Jonathan Turley ‘very concerned’


By Fox News Staff Fox News | Published March 20, 2024 2:00pm EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-jackson-chilling-first-amendment-comments-leave-jonathan-turley-concerned

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley discusses the latest in Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis’ misconduct investigation and unpacks key Supreme Court cases.

In a big week for the Supreme Court, justices heard several cases relating to the First Amendment. Arguments from one case relating to government censorship sparked viral backlash after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to suggest government collusion with social media companies could be justified. On “America’s Newsroom” on Wednesday, Fox News contributor and constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley outlined his concern over the “chilling” remarks from Justice Jackson. 

JUSTICE JACKSON LAMBASTED FOR ‘CONCERN’ 1ST AMENDMENT COULD ‘HAMSTRING GOVERNMENT’ IN COVID CENSORSHIP HEARING

JONATHAN TURLEY: There are indeed important First Amendment cases here. As someone associated with the free speech community, we’re all on edge. It was chilling in the social media case to hear justices like Jackson repeatedly say, what’s the problem with the government coercing speech? Why shouldn’t they, when there are really troubling periods … like in the pandemic. And many of us were really sort of agape at that, because much of what the government did on censorship was wrong. Many things that they were censoring, by scientists who were fired and disciplined and barred from social media, in some cases. They were vindicated, ultimately, on things like the origin of the virus [in a Chinese lab], showing that it’s not just a possibility, many consider it the leading possibility. Closing of schools. They were vindicated on many of those things. And yet you had Jackson saying, I don’t see why the government can’t coerce social media. So, we’re all very concerned where the government will land there.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was unable to define the word “woman” when asked at her confirmation hearing last year, is now under scrutiny for her dissent in a landmark decision rejecting affirmative action. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

The Supreme Court heard Murthy v. Missouri on Monday, a case challenging the Biden administration’s alleged coordination with Big Tech to censor certain messages. The case stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states Missouri and Louisiana that accused high-ranking government officials of working with social media companies “under the guise of combating misinformation” that ultimately led to censoring speech on topics that included Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins and the efficacy of face masks — which the states argued was a First Amendment violation.

As the justices questioned whether the Biden administration crossed the constitutional line, Justice Brown Jackson appeared to suggest that such actions can be justified.

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” she told the lawyer representing Louisiana, Missouri and private plaintiffs. 

JUSTICE JACKSON RIPPED FOR WORRYING ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT ‘HAMSTRINGING’ GOVERNMENT: ‘LITERALLY THE POINT’

“And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” she continued.

“So, can you help me? Because I’m really — I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems,” Jackson added.

Her comments quickly went viral with dozens of people insisting that “hamstringing the federal government” is “literally the point” of the First Amendment.

Fox News’ Lindsey Kornick and Alexa Moutevelis contributed to this report.

Video

This article was written by Fox News staff.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – RNC 2024 Kickoff

A.F. BRANCO |  on March 20, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-rnc-2024-kickoff/

Trumps’s RNC 2024
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

In with the new and out with the old. The Trump people have taken over the RNC with Lara Trump at the helm, so apparent changes are in store, such as removing the RINOs and guiding the party more closely aligned with the conservative base voter as opposed to the elites.

Lara Trump’s Leadership has instant instant effect on GOP’s digital fundraising

Posted by Guest Contributor  March 19, 2024

Lara Trump, the newly appointed co-chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC), declared on Wednesday that the GOP had experienced its “largest digital fundraising weekend since 2020.” The announcement was made via a post on X, where she expressed her pride in the achievement and hinted at more to come, stating, “we are just getting started!”

Although the exact amount raised was not disclosed, the news comes as a welcome relief for the financially beleaguered GOP. The party’s former chair, Ronna McDaniel, had previously been criticized for extravagant spending while achieving limited electoral success. READ MORE…

 
DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Monday, March 19, 2024

Top Stories
New Estimate Shows More Than 1 Million Babies Killed in Abortions in 2023
Congressional Hearing Exposes How Abortion Industry Sells Aborted Baby Parts
Polls Show Voters Want a Better Economy and Secure Borders, Not More Abortions
Marco Rubio: Democrats are the Extremists Because They Support Abortions Up to Birth

More Pro-Life News
Woman Sentenced to Life in Prison After Going on Vacation, Leaving Her Toddler at Home to Die
Report Shows 63% of Abortions Use Pills That Starve Babies to Death and Kill or Injure Women
New Poll Shows Trump With 25% Lead Over Biden Among Catholic Voters
Ask Pro-Abortion Candidates Like Joe Biden: How Many Abortions are Enough?
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

New Estimate Shows More Than 1 Million Babies Killed in Abortions in 2023

Congressional Hearing Exposes How Abortion Industry Sells Aborted Baby Parts

Polls Show Voters Want a Better Economy and Secure Borders, Not More Abortions

Marco Rubio: Democrats are the Extremists Because They Support Abortions Up to Birth


 

Woman Sentenced to Life in Prison After Going on Vacation, Leaving Her Toddler at Home to Die

 

Report Shows 63% of Abortions Use Pills That Starve Babies to Death and Kill or Injure Women

New Poll Shows Trump With 25% Lead Over Biden Among Catholic Voters

Ask Pro-Abortion Candidates Like Joe Biden: How Many Abortions are Enough?

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Abortion Industry Desperately Sells as Many Abortions as Possible While Some States Protect Babies

Abortion Goes Against the Bible, Which Says We’re “Fearfully and Wonderfully Made” by God

Soros-Backed Organization Hacked Thousands of Private Emails From Pro-Life Groups

CVS and Walgreens Become Abortion Businesses, Selling Drugs That Kill Babies

Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.

Nebraska Ballot Measure Would Save Babies From Abortions

Man Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for Burning Church to the Ground

California Wants to Make It Easier for People to Kill Themselves in Assisted Suicides

Montana Supreme Court Allows Ballot Measure for Abortions Up to Birth to Proceed

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.

US Supreme Court Lets Texas Enforce Law on Illegal Border Crossings


Tuesday, 19 March 2024 02:23 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/us/texas-law-illegal/2024/03/19/id/1157850/

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to block a Republican-backed Texas law allowing state law enforcement authorities to arrest people suspected of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, rejecting a request by President Joe Biden’s administration. The administration had asked the justices to freeze a judicial order allowing the Texas law to take effect while the U.S. government’s challenge to the statute proceeds in the lower courts. The administration has argued that the law violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law by interfering with the U.S. government’s power to regulate immigration.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott last December signed the law, known as SB 4, authorizing state law enforcement to arrest people suspected of entering the United States illegally, giving local officers powers long delegated to the U.S. government. Abbott said the law was needed due to Biden’s failure to enforce federal laws criminalizing illegal entry or re-entry, telling a Dec. 18 press conference that “Biden’s deliberate inaction has left Texas to fend for itself.”

The Democrat president’s handling of the record numbers of migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border during his presidency has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans. Abbott and other Republicans have said Biden should have kept the restrictive policies of former President Donald Trump, their party’s candidate challenging Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election.

The Texas law made illegal entry or re-entry into Texas a state crime, with penalties ranging from 180 days in jail to 20 years in prison. Under it, Texas magistrate judges will be required to order migrants to return to Mexico, with up to 20-year sentences for those who refuse to comply.

The Justice Department sued in January to block the measure, which was originally set to take effect on March 5. Biden administration lawyers argued that it violates federal law and constitutional provisions giving the U.S. government the power to regulate commerce with foreign countries and among states, and runs afoul of a 2012 Supreme Court precedent.

Texas-based U.S. District David Ezra on Feb. 29 sided with the administration and agreed to preliminarily block Texas officials from enforcing the law, saying that it “threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice.”

But the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paused Ezra’s ruling in an order that would have let the Texas law take effect on March 10, prompting the administration to file an emergency request to the Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito, who handles certain emergency matters involving cases from a group of states including Texas, on March 4 halted the 5th Circuit ruling — and thus the law — from taking effect, giving the Supreme Court more time to consider the matter.

Texas has pursued a range of measures to deter people who cross illegally under its Operation Lone Star, including deploying National Guard troops to the border, blocking migrants with concertina wire and installing a floating barrier over a stretch of the Rio Grande.

Republicans in February scuttled a bipartisan Senate deal that would have bolstered border security and tightened immigration laws after Trump pushed members of his party to reject it. Biden said blame for the bill’s failure lay with Republican lawmakers who bowed to political pressure from Trump who “thinks it’s bad for him politically.”

An analysis of exit polls conducted by Edison Research following primary election voting in early March showed alarm among many voters over the situation along the border. Many called it their top voting issue. Reuters/Ipsos polling showed Biden’s public approval level at 37% as of Feb. 28.

© 2024 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Dershowitz to Newsmax: $464M Judgment Against Trump Intended to Prevent Appeal


 By Nicole Wells    |   Tuesday, 19 March 2024 11:00 AM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-new-york/2024/03/19/id/1157811/

Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax on Tuesday that the $464 million judgment against Donald Trump in the New York civil fraud case is “unconscionable” and “unconstitutional,” and it is designed to prevent the former president from being able to appeal.

“It encourages lawless judges to simply impose fines that are so high that nobody can ever get the bond to appeal, and it means that they preclude themselves from being reversed on appeal,” Dershowitz said on Newsmax’s “Wake Up America.” “It’s unconscionable, and the state of New York has to change the process. I would hope that the New York Court of Appeals would do something about it.

“It just gives the judges the incentive to impose high fines to avoid being reversed on appeal. In this case, the fine was outrageous and will be lowered on appeal. Nobody has ever heard of a fine of close to a half a billion dollars without a finding of any damage whatsoever. Nobody was hurt. No lender, no bank was hurt. The money was made up.”

Trump has thus far been unable to obtain a bond that would allow him to appeal the $464 million judgment against him without posting the full amount himself, his attorneys said Monday. Trump must either find the cash or post a bond to prevent New York authorities from seizing his properties while he appeals last month’s ruling.

Dershowitz said Justice Arthur Engoron imposed such a high fine to prevent Trump from being able to appeal.

“The purpose of imposing so high a fine was precisely to prevent the appellate courts from slapping down the judge and saying, What are you thinking? That kind of money for this kind of event?” Dershowitz said. “It’s a cruel and unusual fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the process by which he’s being denied an appeal is also in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

“I hope his lawyers will bring these matters to the attention of the higher courts because it affects not only Donald Trump. This kind of a tactic, this ploy, could be used by judges against anybody. Impose a high fine, make it impossible for you to raise the bail and then avoid being reversed on appeal.”

Compounding Trump’s legal woes, Dershowitz said, is the difficulty in obtaining first-rate legal counsel due to a campaign of intimidation.

“Trump has had a hard time getting the top, top, top-tier attorneys in many instances because there’s an organization called Project 65, a McCarthy-ite left-wing organization which has as its goal deterring lawyers from representing Trump,” Dershowitz said. “They file bar charges, including one against me, and any other lawyer who defends Trump.

“I’ve had lawyers call me and say we’d love to defend the former president, but we can’t afford to have a bar charge. I’m obviously fighting mine — everybody should.

“There’s a systematic effort by this McCarthy-ite, unethical Project 65 to prevent lawyers from defending Trump and, unfortunately, it’s working.”

About NEWSMAX TV:

NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!

  • Find Newsmax channel in your home via cable and satellite systems – More Info Here
  • Watch Newsmax+ on your home TV app or smartphone and watch it anywhere! Try it for FREE — See More Here: NewsmaxPlus.com

Nicole Wells 

Nicole Wells, a Newsmax general assignment reporter covers news, politics, and culture. She is a National Newspaper Association award-winning journalist.

Trump Vows US Will Stay in NATO If Partners Pay Share


By Fran Beyer    |   Tuesday, 19 March 2024 03:22 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/donald-trump-nato-europe/2024/03/19/id/1157853/

Former President Donald Trump said the United States will “100%” stay in NATO if he wins the White House in November — as long as European countries “play fair” and meet their financial obligations to the alliance.

In an interview with Nigel Farage on Tuesday night on British TV channel GB News, Trump asserted his commitment to the transatlantic alliance as long as European nations don’t “take advantage” of U.S. support, according to Politico. The assurance comes as Western leaders worry Trump could formally withdraw the United States from NATO if he wins a second term as commander in chief, the outlet noted.

Trump has been critical of NATO for years, and said last month he’d “encourage” Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries that didn’t meet their financial obligations to the alliance. But Trump’s tone changed in the interview with Farage, the former leader of the U.K.’s Brexit Party — though the message remained the same: Europe must pay “its fair share” of defense costs, Politico reported.

“NATO has to treat the U.S. fairly, because if it’s not for the United States, NATO literally doesn’t even exist,” Trump declared.

Asked if the United States under his presidency would come to the aid of NATO countries under attack, Trump said it would.

“Yeah. But you know, the United States should pay its fair share, not everybody else’s fair share,” Trump said, according to Politico.

“We have an ocean in between some problems … we have a nice big, beautiful ocean,” Trump added. “[NATO] is more important for [European countries], they will take an advantage.”

“So, if they start to play fair, America’s there?” Farage asked.

“Yes — 100%,” Trump replied.

Politico reported that according to NATO, about two-thirds of its 32 member countries are spending on defense at the alliance’s target level of 2% or above of GDP. In his first White House term, Trump criticized the nation’s transatlantic allies — Germany in particular — about increasing defense spending, and Europe continues to worry over the reliability of the decades-old U.S. commitment to European security, Politico reported.

The anxiety is now heightened by Trump’s presidential bid and the gridlock in Washington over an aid package to help Ukraine fend off a Russian invasion, the outlet noted.

Fran Beyer 

Fran Beyer is a writer with Newsmax and covers national politics.

Note to Ketanji Brown Jackson: The First Amendment Should ‘Hamstring’ the Government. That’s the Entire Point.


By: Tyler O’Neil @Tyler2ONeil / March 19, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/19/note-ketanji-brown-jackson-first-amendment-should-hamstring-government-thats-entire-point/

Ketanji Brown Jackson shakes hands with a man in a blue suit while she wears a large necklace above her black robes
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested in oral arguments Monday that the First Amendment should not be allowed to “hamstring” the government amid a crisis. Pictured: Jackson arrives for President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address at the Capitol on March 7. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government strong-armed Big Tech companies into censoring as “disinformation” Americans’ true experiences while effectively mandating government propaganda, which itself turned out to be misinformation. The Supreme Court is currently considering whether that strategy violated the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested during oral arguments Monday that the First Amendment should not be allowed to “hamstring” the government amid a crisis.

Jackson asked J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, the solicitor general of Louisiana, a rather revealing question about the issue.

“So, my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson said.

The Supreme Court justice presented an extremely unlikely hypothetical that most American young people would find very insulting. She presented a scenario in which young people took cellphone video of their peers jumping out of windows, and that trend went viral on social media (preposterous), Big Tech companies failed to take action on their own (very unlikely), and the government wanted to stop it.

She asked Aguiñaga, “What would you have the government do? I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, ‘Kids, this is not safe, don’t do it,’ is not going to get it done.”

“So, I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” Jackson said. “I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”

“I understand that instinct,” Aguiñaga replied. “Our position is not that the government can’t interact with the platforms there … but the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment.”

Jackson suggested it would be unjust for the First Amendment to limit the government’s actions in addressing a hypothetical crisis, but the First Amendment expressly exists in order to hamstring the federal government.

As Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said in response to Jackson’s concern about the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government, “that’s what it’s supposed to do, for goodness’ sake.”

The amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The amendment does not include a “crisis-exemption clause” allowing the government to trample on free speech if the president declares a national emergency. If it did, President Joe Biden might declare a national emergency on climate and strong-arm Big Tech into censoring opposition to the climate alarmist narrative. He might declare a national emergency on the nonexistent “epidemic” of violence against transgender people, and pressure social media to ban any disagreement with gender ideology.

Big Tech platforms already censor conservative speech on those issues, but it could become far worse.

Missouri v. Murthy presents an excellent illustration.

The plaintiffs in the case—Missouri and Louisiana, represented by state Attorneys General Andrew Bailey and Liz Murrill, respectively; doctors who spoke out against the COVID-19 mandates, such as Martin Kulldorff, Jayanta Bhattacharya, and Aaron Kheriaty; Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft; and anti-lockdown advocate and Health Freedom Louisiana Co-Director Jill Hines—allege that the Biden administration “suppressed conservative-leaning free speech” on the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 presidential election; on COVID-19 issues, including its origin, masks, lockdowns, and vaccines; on election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; on the security of voting by mail; on the economy; and on Joe Biden himself.

On July 4, federal Judge Terry Doughty in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued an injunction barring the Biden administration from pressuring Big Tech to censor Americans. Doughty’s injunction named various federal agencies—including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (the agency Dr. Anthony Fauci formerly directed), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the State Department—and officials, including HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit narrowed the extent of Doughty’s injunction, and the Supreme Court stayed the 5th Circuit’s order before taking up the case.

“The Twitter Files” revealed how the process worked: Federal agencies would have frequent meetings with Big Tech companies, warning about “misinformation” and repeatedly pressuring them to remove or suppress content. Federal agents and politicians occasionally threatened that if the companies did not act, the government would reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, removing legal protections the companies enjoyed.

As Justice Samuel Alito noted, federal officials treated Facebook, Twitter (now X), and other social media companies “like their subordinates.”

As part of this lawsuit, Bailey unearthed documents in which Facebook told the White House that it suppressed “often-true content” that might discourage Americans from taking COVID-19 vaccines. In that context, Jackson’s question about the First Amendment “hamstringing the government” seems particularly alarming. The federal government did not act to suppress speech amid an existential crisis like a world war or a civil war. It acted after good data became available showing that COVID-19 poses a deadly threat to the elderly and those with co-morbidities, and while the government was advocating vaccines for all populations, not just the most vulnerable.

Jackson’s question suggests that she wants the government to have more control over speech on social media, even after the abuses this case uncovered. If the First Amendment is good for anything, it should “hamstring” the government from silencing Americans in order to push its own propaganda. Jackson, as a sitting Supreme Court justice, should know that.

Then again, if she can’t define the word “woman,” perhaps Americans shouldn’t be surprised if she doesn’t grasp the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment.

The Odor of Mendacity: 2024 Could Turn on Smell of Selective Prosecution from Georgia to New York


By Jonathan Turley | March 19, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/18/the-odor-of-mendacity-2024-could-turn-on-smell-of-selective-prosecution-from-georgia-to-new-york/

Below is my column in the Hill on the recent decision in Georgia and the “odor of mendacity” rising out of various courtrooms across the country.  It is the smell of not just selective prosecution but political bias in our legal system. It is becoming harder to deny the existence of a two-track system of justice in the country as commentators and even a few courts raise concerns over the role of politics in prosecutions.

Here is the column:

The removal of lead special prosecutor Nathan Wade from Donald Trump’s prosecution had the feel of a Southern Gothic.

Fulton County, Ga. District Attorney Fani Willis had described Wade as “a Southern gentleman. Me, not so much.” For weeks, the public has been enthralled by accounts of Wade’s illicit affair with Willis. Then there was the roughly three-quarters of a million dollars paid to Wade before he was booted from the case this week.

Channeling Tennessee Williams in his play “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,” Judge Scott McAfee wrote that, after their testimony, there remained “an odor of mendacity.” That odor was particularly strong after the hearings indicated that Wade may have committed perjury in his earlier divorce case, and that both Willis and Wade were credibly accused of lying on the stand about when their relationship began.

They are prosecuting defendants in the Trump case accused of the same underlying conduct, including  19 individual counts of false statements, false filings or perjury. Yet, that distinct odor noted by Judge McAfee goes beyond the sordid affairs of Willis and Wade.

For many citizens, mendacity, or dishonesty, is wafting from various courtrooms around the country. The odor is becoming intolerable for many Americans as selective prosecution is being raised in a wide array of cases. The problem is that courts have made it virtually impossible to use this claim to dismiss counts. Yet there is a disturbing level of merit to some of these underlying objections.

For years, conservatives have objected that there is a two-tier system of justice in this country. I have long resisted such claims, but it has become increasingly difficult to deny the obvious selective prosecution in a variety of recent cases and opinions.

I have long stated that the charges against Trump over documents at Mar-a-Lago are strong and based on established precedent. However, the recent decision of Special Counsel Robert Hur not to bring criminal charges against President Joe Biden has undermined even that case.

Hur described four decades of Biden serially violating laws governing classified documents. The evidence included Biden telling a third party that he had classified material in his house and actually reading from a classified document to his non-cleared ghostwriter. There is evidence of an effort to destroy evidence and later an effort of the White House to change the report. There is also Biden’s repeated denial of any knowledge or memory of the documents found in nine locations where he worked or lived.

Hur ultimately had to justify the lack of charges based on a belief that he could not secure a conviction from a D.C. jury with an elderly defendant with diminished mental faculties. Although Special Counsel Jack Smith could still proceed on obstruction counts, his prosecution of Trump for the retention and mishandling of national security documents is absurdly in conflict with the treatment Biden is receiving.

In New York, the legislature changed the statute of limitations to allow Trump to be sued while New York Attorney General Letitia James effectively ran on a pledge of selectively prosecuting him. She never specified any particular crime, just promising to bag Trump. Ultimately, James used a law in an unprecedented way to secure an absurd penalty of roughly half a billion dollars, even though no one lost a dime because of the Trump loans.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has also come up with an unprecedented way of using a state law to effectively prosecute Trump for a federal offense that the Justice Department has already rejected.

The same odor has been lingering in the Hunter Biden cases. The Justice Department had reached a ridiculous plea agreement with Hunter Biden that would have allowed for no jail time and a sweeping immunity agreement that would have protected him from all of his other alleged crimes.

As the plea agreement fell apart in court, the prosecutor admitted that he had never seen a defendant given such a deal over his long career. This came after the Justice Department had allowed the statute of limitations to run out on major felonies and scuttled efforts to conduct searches and interviews. Even after that embarrassing hearing, the Justice Department was still trying to preserve the agreement.

It is not just the Trump and Biden cases where there is a stench of selective prosecution. Consider a few other recent cases.

In California, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney issued an opinion that found such evidence of selective prosecution against conservative groups. In considering a far-right group, Carney noted that the Justice Department has had sharply different approaches based on the political views of the defendants. Antifa and other leftist groups often see charges dropped, whereas federal prosecutors seek draconian sentences against conservative defendants.

“Such selective prosecution leaves the troubling impression that the government believes speech on the left more deserving of protection than speech on the right. The government remains free to prosecute those, like Defendants, who allegedly use violence to suppress First Amendment rights. But it cannot ignore others, equally culpable, because Defendants’ speech and beliefs are more offensive. The Constitution forbids such selective prosecution,” Carney noted.

That treatment was equally glaring when federal prosecutors convicted an Antifa supporter who took an ax to the door of Sen. John Hoeven’s office in Fargo. He was given no jail time, and the FBI even returned his ax. He later mocked the government by posting on social media “Look what the FBI were kind enough to give back to me!

Likewise, this week, former U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins was disbarred after being found to have lied to investigators about leaking material to the press for political purposes. Rollins had allegedly made a clear and knowingly false statement to federal investigators, but the Justice Department just shrugged it off and refused to indict.

FBI Director James Comey received similar gentle treatment after removing FBI material and arranging for information to be leaked to the media. Meanwhile, defendants such as Trump’s National Security Adviser Michael Flynn were pursued relentlessly for making false statements to investigators under Comey’s watch.

These and other cases have fulfilled Trump’s narrative about a politically weaponized legal system. The fact is that many in cities like New York are thrilled by selective prosecution and biased sentencing decisions directed at locally unpopular figures.

The rest of us are left in courtrooms, from Georgia to Washington to New York, asking the same question of Tennessee Williams’ “Big Daddy” Pollitt: “What’s that smell in this room? …Didn’t you notice a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room? There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity.”

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

Willis and the Third Option: The McAfee Order is More Ironic than Solomonic


By Jonathan Turley | March 15, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/15/willis-and-the-ethical-option-the-mcafee-order-is-more-ironic-than-solomonic/

Below is my column in the New York Post on the ruling in the Willis/Wade controversy. The references to the decision as “Solomonic” or “Solomonesque” might not be fair to King Solomon. Indeed, the comparison only highlights what is missing in Willis: an overriding interest in the case as opposed to their own position. While the court gave Willis two options (to transfer the case or remove her former lover), there is a third option: step aside.

Here is the column:

Many commentators reviewing the decision of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to disqualify lead Special Counsel Nathan Wade but not Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis as “Solomonic” or “splitting the baby” in the Trump prosecution. Indeed, it was similar in all but one respect. The baby at issue before King Solomon survived. That whole point of the story was not to kill the baby but to see which of the two women loved the baby more.

In the story from 1 Kings 3:16–28, two mothers claim the male child who Solomon declares that each can get one half. One mother immediately accepts while the second woman begs him to just give the first woman the child and not to kill him. Solomon immediately gives the second woman the child as clearly the mother who loves the baby.

But if either Wade or Willis truly loved “their baby” — the case against Trump — they would have removed themselves weeks ago. Their personal controversies have derailed the case and mired the prosecution in scandal. Ethically, this should not have been a difficult question. They should have stepped aside.

That conclusion is more than evident in Judge McAfee’s decision, which shreds their claims on the stand and outside of the courthouse.

The court describes Willis’s controversial speech at a church as “’playing the race card . . . to cast racial aspersions at an indicted Defendant’s decision to file this pretrial motion.” He hammers Willis for her lack of professional judgment and stresses, with perhaps an unintentional pun, that “providing this type of public comment creates dangerous waters for the District Attorney to wade further into.”

Judge McAfee also indicates that the testimony of Wade failed to resolve questions of filing false statements to a prior court and that his testimony on when the relationship began stood contradicted.

McAfee has done a fair job throughout the case. Moreover, he makes a valid point when he notes that this evidence does not establish a strong basis for claiming that the case was brought or pursued due to this relationship or possible financial gain. Indeed, the purpose of this case was not personal but political. While the indictments contain some valid criminal charges, they are largely minor offenses like unlawful access to voting areas. The overall racketeering claim used to ensnarl Trump is forced and weak.

The problem is that the Court casts doubt on Wade’s testimony on the relationship, but ignores that Willis effectively ratified those claims in her own testimony. Willis and Wade are both prosecuting people for the very same conduct of filing false statements with courts and making false statements. The two lawyers testified in tandem but only one was disqualified.

McAfee is no Solomon in this decision. He splits the accused to avoid making the harder decision. If he disqualified Willis, he likely would have had to disqualify her entire office. That would throw the entire case (and certainly the pre-election schedule) into doubt. So he left her with the choice:

“The prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the State selects one of two options. The District Attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment. Alternatively, SADA Wade can withdraw, allowing the District Attorney, the Defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case.”

He is leaving Wade with no choice at all beyond an appeal. However, Willis will be allowed to place her own interests as the overriding purpose of the prosecution. In some ways, it is a result that should please no one other than Donald Trump.

The defense removed the lead special prosecutor while leaving Willis carrying more baggage than Amtrak. It does not, however, serve the interests of justice. Willis will now prosecute defendants for false statements as her own questionable testimony is likely to be investigated by the state and the bar. She could still be effectively removed or disqualified. That prospect does not appear to give Willis pause.

It is not too late for Willis to act professionally in best interests of her office and the people of Fulton County. She can step aside in light of the damning findings of the court. Otherwise, like the first woman in the trial with Solomon, she would rather see the baby sawed in half than give it up entirely.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Roadblock

A.F. BRANCO |  on March 17, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-roadblock/

03 MinnUber AN 1080
A Political Cartoon by A. F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Minneapolis City Council cracks down on Uber, making it hard to do business in the city

Uber says it will suspend services in metro area after Minneapolis vote

Lyft said it plans to shut down operations in Minneapolis. Uber and Lyft announced their eventual suspension of services in Minneapolis following the City Council’s authorization of a new city ordinance. Specifically, the ordinance would require Uber and Lyft drivers to be paid a “minimum compensation.” READ MORE…

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Get The Flock Out

A.F. BRANCO

 on March 19, 2024 at 5:00 am

Democrats Gaslighting
A Political Cartoon by A. F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Democrats always accuse their enemies of what they themselves are guilty of, right out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals.” Democrats have been beating the “Trump is a danger to Democracy” drum because it is all they have in their war chest with Biden as their candidate. It is actually the Democrats that are the real threat to freedom of speech, the 2nd Amendment, and our constitutional republic as a whole.

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Monday, March 18, 2024

Top Stories
Pro-Life Group Endorses Donald Trump: He “Supported Efforts to Safeguard Preborn Babies”
Americans Say Pro-Abortion Joe Biden is Not Really a “Devout Catholic”
Donald Trump Pushes Abortion Legislation That Could Stop Abortions Up to Birth
Kamala Harris Condemned “Women Having Miscarriages in Toilets,” But That’s What the Abortion Pill Does

More Pro-Life News
Kellyanne Conway is Wrong, We Must Highlight How Democrats Support Abortions Up to Birth
Former Planned Parenthood Director Urges Abortion Center Workers to Quit
She Survived a 5-Day-Long Late-Term Abortion That Was Supposed to Kill Her
Margaret Sanger Wanted to “Exterminate” Black People, Kamala Harris is Continuing Her Mission
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Pro-Life Group Endorses Donald Trump: He “Supported Efforts to Safeguard Preborn Babies”

Americans Say Pro-Abortion Joe Biden is Not Really a “Devout Catholic”

Donald Trump Pushes Abortion Legislation That Could Stop Abortions Up to Birth

Kamala Harris Condemned “Women Having Miscarriages in Toilets,” But That’s What the Abortion Pill Does


 

Kellyanne Conway is Wrong, We Must Highlight How Democrats Support Abortions Up to Birth

 

Former Planned Parenthood Director Urges Abortion Center Workers to Quit

She Survived a 5-Day-Long Late-Term Abortion That Was Supposed to Kill Her

Margaret Sanger Wanted to “Exterminate” Black People, Kamala Harris is Continuing Her Mission

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Catholic Bishops Call for Prayer Campaign Before Supreme Court Tackles Abortion Case

The Slaughter of 300,000 Disabled People Paved the Way for the Holocaust

Study Shows Teens Who Had Abortions 40% More Likely to Die Prematurely Than Teens Who Never Got Pregnant

FDA Lied to Women. Now Abortion Pills are Killing and Injuring Them

Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.

British MP: Why Do They Kill Babies in Late-Term Abortions Who Can Survive Outside the Womb?

102,573 Britons Sign Petition Supporting Measure to Stop Late-Term Abortions

Man Faces Two Murder Charges for Killing Pregnant Mom and Her Unborn Baby

Over 1,100 Pro-Life People Join Maryland March for Life to Protest Abortion

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.

SUMMING UP THE WEEK OF POLITICALLY INCORRECT CARTOONS


March 16, 2024

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Thursday, March 14, 2024

Top Stories
• 19 Years After They Starved My Sister to Death, We Must Never Forget Terri Schiavo
• Joe Biden is Trying to Shut Down a Leading Pro-Life Organization
• New Bill Would Stop Biden From Discriminating Against Christian Foster Parents
• House Republicans Will Emphasize Pro-Life Stance in Campaign to Expand Majority

More Pro-Life News
• Levi Strauss Foundation Donates Millions to Support Killing Babies in Abortions
• Pro-Life Groups Intervene to Prevent Abortion From Becoming a “Constitutional Right” in Wisconsin
• Data Shows Liberal Christians are More Politically Active Than Conservative Christians
• After Making Abortion a Right, Now Emmanuel Macron Wants to Kill People in Euthanasia
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

19 Years After They Starved My Sister to Death, We Must Never Forget Terri Schiavo


Joe Biden is Trying to Shut Down a Leading Pro-Life Organization


New Bill Would Stop Biden From Discriminating Against Christian Foster Parents

House Republicans Will Emphasize Pro-Life Stance in Campaign to Expand Majority

Levi Strauss Foundation Donates Millions to Support Killing Babies in Abortions

 

Pro-Life Groups Intervene to Prevent Abortion From Becoming a “Constitutional Right” in Wisconsin

Data Shows Liberal Christians are More Politically Active Than Conservative Christians

After Making Abortion a Right, Now Emmanuel Macron Wants to Kill People in Euthanasia

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

‘Totalitarian’ Bill Would Establish Maine as Sanctuary State for Abortion

How Illegal Immigration Defeats the Pro-Life, Pro-Family Movement

New Study Shows Perinatal Hospital a Great Alhttps://www.lifenews.com/2024/03/14/leftists-want-to-legalize-euthanasia-in-ireland/ternative to Killing Disabled Babies in Abortions

Scientists move step closer to making IVF eggs from skin cells

Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.

Leftists Want to Legalize Euthanasia in Ireland

Donald Trump Secures Enough Delegates To Clinch Republican Nomination

Republican Senator Blocks Democrat Military Bill That Expands IVF to Gay and Transgender Service Members

Biden Admin Wants Banks to Close Pro-Life Groups’ Bank Accounts: They’re “Hate Groups”

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – To DEI For

A.F. BRANCO | on March 15, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-to-dei-for/

03 FlyDEI SM 1080
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

Many people feel that Boeing’s problems lately are due to its surrender to the Woke agenda, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion).

AND ANOTHER ONE: Boeing Plane Forced to Land After Fuel Starts Leaking Out During Takeoff (VIDEO)

By Cullen Linebarger  – March 13, 2024

The woes continue to pile up for Boeing.

As NBC Bay Area reported, a scary scene unfolded Monday after one of the troubled manufacturer’s planes, a 777-300 jet, was forced to land due to fuel leaking from its right landing gear. The incident occurred just 10 seconds after United Airlines Flight 830 from Sydney to San Francisco took off.  Video captured by plane spotter New York Aviation shows clear images of fluid spewing from the plane.  A passenger video also shows the airline crew dumping fuel before the plane lands. WATCH:

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.

Where Are the Dads Protecting Their Daughters from Dangerous Male Athletes?


BY: ZACHARY METTLER | MARCH 14, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/14/where-are-the-fathers-protecting-their-daughters-against-dangerous-male-athletes/

girls at swim meet

Author Zachary Mettler profile

ZACHARY METTLER

MORE ARTICLES

It’s often said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Of late, too many seemingly good men have done nothing to protect their daughters from transgender-identified athletes competing in girls’ sporting events. Let’s not mince words. These male athletes are harming and hurting their daughters under the guise of “equality” and “fairness.”

Just last week, a Massachusetts high school girls’ basketball team forfeited a game after a male on the opposing team injured three female players. The team decided to forfeit because the injured girl’s female teammates were afraid of getting hurt themselves.

The girls made the right call, to be sure. But why was it necessary in the first place? And why was it up to teenage girls to make that call?

Last year, also in Massachusetts, a male high school field hockey player, identifying as a girl, hit a ball so hard it knocked out a female player’s teeth. Video of the incident shows the female player crumpling to the ground and shrieking as her teammates cover their mouths with their hands and walk around in shock.

Every time I see another story like this — and the number of incidents is surging — I wonder: Where were their fathers? Why have so few fathers, especially after their daughters were injured by a male, stepped forward and said, “Not on my watch”?

Recently, former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines shared a similar sentiment, telling Joe Rogan on his podcast, “I thought someone with political power, someone within the NCAA — quite honestly, I thought someone’s dad — would come down there and yank this man out of our locker rooms.”

Yet it never happened. “I’m standing on the podium, and we’re clapping, and we’re smiling, and we’re cheering, and it hit me, I’m like, what in the world are we clapping for?” she said.

How many injured female athletes will it take for one father to stand up and manfully assert, “Enough is enough. I refuse to let my daughter be physically harmed by a male in her sport.”

How far men should go to protect their daughters is a conversation that needs to be had. But to have that conversation, first, men must do somethingAnything.

Even when men competing against women doesn’t cause female athletes bodily harm, it is no less unjust. In New Jersey, transgender-identified swimmer Megan Cortez-Fields competed for three years on the Ramapo College men’s swimming team before switching to the women’s team. He’s since set school records in the women’s 200 Individual Medley.

Over the course of three years in Connecticut, two male athletes broke 17 girls’ track meet records, took more than 85 opportunities to advance to the next level of competition, and won 15 women’s state track championship titles. It’s past time for women to stop paying the price for men taking away their places, their awards, and their health and safety.

Women should not be forced to sacrifice their bodies on the altar of political correctness. It’s time for men to do their duty and confront other men — even if those men identify as women. Call a spade a spade and do not apologize for doing so.

Now consider the most vocal advocates for women’s sports. Think about those activists who are boldly standing up for truth, common sense, and women’s safety. Here’s a few: J.K. Rowling, Riley Gaines, Megyn Kelly, Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, Ashley Nicoletti, and Bethany Hamilton. Notice a pattern? They’re all women. And good for them, because the more women who stand up and speak out, the better. But where are the men?

In his book The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis spoke about men who lack conviction and fortitude. “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise,” Lewis wrote. “It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so.”

Such could be said of the state of America’s men today. We’re too comfortable. We’re too apathetic. And we’re too nice. We could use a little more righteous indignation from America’s men.

Perhaps I’m just old-fashioned, but I was raised to respect and care for women. I know that men are supposed to protect and provide for their families. I refuse to stand idly by as the women of America suffer at the hands of men.

If you’re a father who’s still reticent to stand up for your daughter, here’s a suggestion: Don’t go it alone. Join forces with other fathers. The Good Book says, “Though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him — a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12).

Courage is contagious. So, fathers of America, the ball is in your court. Your daughters are waiting for you to protect and take care of them. This is your job. This is your responsibility. This is your duty.


Zachary Mettler works as a staff writer and communications liaison for the Daily Citizen at Focus on the Family. In his role, he writes about current political issues, U.S. history, political philosophy, and culture. Mettler earned his Bachelor’s degree from William Jessup University and is an alumnus of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. In addition to the Daily Citizen, his written pieces have appeared in the Daily Wire, the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner, Newsweek, Townhall, the Daily Signal, the Christian Post, Charisma News and other outlets.

Republican Jewish Coalition: Schumer Crossed ‘Red Line’


By Fran Beyer    |   Thursday, 14 March 2024 01:38 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/chuck-schumer-matt-brooks-jewish-republicans/2024/03/14/id/1157291/

A political group supporting Jewish Republicans lashed out Thursday at Democrat Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s call for Israel to hold new elections and oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu amid the continued bombardment of Gaza.

In a stinging response to Schumer’s “anti-Israel speech,” Republican Jewish Coalition leader Matt Brooks declared the New Yorker had “crossed a real red line.”

“As Israel continues to righteously fight to defend itself from barbaric terrorists, the most powerful Democrat in Congress knifed the Jewish state in the back,” a RJC statement said — deriding the Schumer speech as having “demanded that Israel’s democratically-elected government be evicted from power and replaced by one more to his liking.”

“Sen. Schumer crossed a real red line,” the statement said. “It is outrageous and unacceptable to meddle in Israel’s domestic politics by demanding that a democratic ally hold elections on our timetable, particularly when the Jewish state is fighting for its very survival.”

The lashing noted that Schumer “has frequently described himself as the so-called ‘Shomer’, or guardian, of the Jewish people, but that his remarks Thursday were “a ‘Shanda’, a disgrace.”

The denouncement ended with “a clarion call to take back the White House and US Senate from this radical Democrat leadership,” accusing those leaders of “waging political warfare on our key ally Israel and rewarding terrorists.”

The searing criticism comes as Senate Republicans question Schumer’s outrage.

“Chuck Schumer’s demand for new Israeli elections is inappropriate and offensive,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wrote in a statement on social media. “Israel is a close ally and a healthy, vibrant democracy. The last thing Israel needs is the ‘foreign election interference’ that Democrats so often decry here.”

Fran Beyer 

Fran Beyer is a writer with Newsmax and covers national politics.

The Rise of Transgenderism


By: Armstrong Williams @Arightside / March 14, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/14/the-rise-of-transgenderism/

Members of the transgender community hold a flag while blocking Avenida de los Insurgentes and Avenida Paseo de la Reforma in Mexico City to demand justice for hate crimes and transphobia against transgender women in the Mexican capital. (Photo: Gerardo Vieyra/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Over the past decade, the United States has seen a rise in power of the transgender movement. Once a fringe, left-wing movement premised on the idea that gender is a social construct and that it can be changed at a whim, it has now become mainstream. Today, the question “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” is now a political question.

The transgender movement can be traced back as far as 1952, when trans woman Virginia Prince launched a publication titled Transvestia: The Journal of the American Society for Equality in Dress.

Following that, the movement experienced rapid expansion, culminating in a riot in Los Angeles within seven years. The unrest originated as a retaliatory response to the Los Angeles Police Department, which was perceived to have engaged in harassment of the LGBTQ community. Then, in 1966, there was another riot. In 1969, another riot. inally, as a result of the 1996 publication Transgender Warriors by American lesbian activist Leslie Feinberg, the term “transgender” gained widespread usage.

Today, 1.6% of Americans, or 4,800,000 adults aged 18 or over, say their gender is different from their sex assigned at birth. However, that number is on the rise, as 5.1%, or nearly 15,000,000 young adults aged 18-29, fall into that category. This can be attributed to a litany of factors, including changing education environments in classrooms, social media, and more.

The “marked incongruence between (a person’s) experienced or expressed gender and the one they were assigned at birth” defines gender dysphoria. As of now, gender dysphoria’s causes remain unknown, and it does not have an established treatment. The term “gender dysphoria,” which is frequently used in the medical field, has itself become a subject of political controversy.

Today, despite the small numbers of transgender people in the United States, the movement has permeated nearly all facets of life.

  • Educators raise LGBTQ flags in classrooms nationwide and educate students in the elementary school age range that their designated gender at birth may not always reflect their true identity. Such a serious injustice necessitates rectification.
  • Students in elementary school have limited knowledge regarding sexuality; therefore, being informed that they could be of a different gender can be confusing to them—it can change them even if they never wanted to be changed.

It is worth noting that around 80% of children who experience gender dysphoria as children eventually overcome it and opt not to identify as transgender as adults.

In addition, depression among children who overcome gender dysphoria is extremely uncommon. However, according to The Trevor Project, a national organization dedicated to preventing suicide among LGBTQ youth, around 60% of transgender youth experience symptoms of depression, and 70% experience anxiety.

Depression affects approximately 5%-6% of the general population. In addition, around 0.5% of the general population has attempted suicide, while nearly half of transgender youth have considered suicide, and nearly 20% have attempted it.

But what causes this depression? Could it be bullying? Could it be that transgender rights are persistently violated? Of course not. On the contrary, transgender people are thriving. Their rights are enshrined in state constitutions, they are protected by numerous state laws, they are given more protections by schools than any other class of students; transgender people may have more rights than the average person.

Of course, we can’t forget drag story hour, where numerous elementary schools throughout the country have males dressed in scant attire read books about transgenderism to children.

It is unnecessary to expose children to males in little clothing in order for them to hear stories. The mind of a child is sacred and must not be exposed to these sorts of things. It can corrupt the mind and, as we’ve seen, may lead them down the road of gender dysphoria and ultimately depression.

Tragically, transgenderism has compromised the rights of biological women. Undoubtedly, women continue to advocate equality in the United States. Women continue to face significant disparities in the workforce and in public life. However, before the complete realization of gender equality for women, transgenderism emerged and complicated the situation.

At this time, males beat women in all aspects of life. Do you recall 2015, when Caitlyn Jenner was named “Woman of the Year” by Glamour magazine? The recipient of that award was not a woman who had struggled her entire life to be a woman in a world dominated by men. It was taken from a biological woman by a man.

Likewise, transgenderism has entered the realm of athletics. Transgender males have emerged victorious in athletic competitions against biological women on a multitude of occasions. Men have won significant accolades in swimming, wrestling, golf, snooker, and even weightlifting, the sport that exemplifies strength disparities. Men who underwent the transition from male to female are often found to have been mediocre at best among their male counterparts.

And how about sex changes for minors? It is plausible that the notion that a child could undertake surgical gender transition from their biological to an alternative gender would be utterly absurd and repugnant to the average person. However, 54% of Americans oppose legislation that criminalizes providing medical care for gender transition to minors.

Science and common sense support the notion that by our mid-to-late 20s, the brain has reached complete maturity and development. This is why children often engage in foolish behavior without contemplating the repercussions, why a contract formed by a child is deemed void in legal terms, and why alcohol consumption hinders the development of children’s minds. Yet, when it comes to transgenderism, all that goes out the window.

Men are not women, and women are not men. This is the reality everyone on this Earth must face until their death.

America has been divided along lines of common sense by the transgender movement: those who support it and those who do not. The rise of transgenderism will persist as long as rational individuals remain reluctant to express their opinion on the matter.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM

College Park Under Fire Over Self-Professed Revolutionary “Racial Equity” Leader


JonathanTurley.org | March 14, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/14/college-park-under-fire-over-self-professed-revolutionary-racial-equity-leader/

There is a controversy brewing in the City of College Park, Maryland over its “racial equity” leader Kayla Aliese Carter, who is tasked with eliminating systemic racism in the departments of the liberal city.  Carter has called for the United States to be burned down to allow for “Black Liberation.” The city says that it is investigating, but Carter is an interesting snapshot of what I have called the “radical chic” in academia and society. She is a revolutionary who called for violence while complaining that she is being asked to work for a living.  In addressing the controversy, the City of College Park will now need to establish a free speech principle that will apply equally to revolutionaries and reactionaries alike.

In 2022, Carter joined the city workforce under Mayor Fazlul Kabir to implement a “racial equity” agenda across all city departments, affecting policies, practices, programs and budgets. Under Kabir’s leadership, she was to work on reviewing “all current policies and programs” for any bias and “disparate impact… for Black people.”

Carter however appears to prefer arson to analysis.  She has long voiced violent and racist views. She helps guide fellow armchair revolutionaries on “how we will eat and live and grow after we burn it all down.”  She has little patience with incremental changes and calls for others to “dismantle this s–t.” Carter maintains that it is only the destruction of society that will result in true justice: “I can’t wait for society to collapse so MY ideology can rise from the ashes!”

She also rejects criticism of violence, asking “Why do Black people always have to rationalize our violence and anger?” After all, she noted on Instagram, “we are at war against colonialism.” She has posted on how she has facilitated and co-hosted events with people committed to her view of Black liberation. In these public statements, she repeatedly rejects calls for nonviolence in seeking the destruction of society: In one May 2020 post, she asked “Do y’all understand why the oppressed are constantly shamed out of using violence?? BECAUSE THE OPPRESSOR WANTS TO BE THE SOLE PROFITEER OF VIOLENCE. THEY DON’T WANT TO DEAL WITH BACK TALK. ‘DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO’ FACE A–. No.” Using “yT” for white people, she even slammed those who tried to be inclusive at work:

“This yT man in my meeting just said, ‘I want to take a moment and give the floor to any Black… participants to… tell us what MLK Day this year meant to you.’ I SWEAR I AM WHEEZING WHO HIRES THESE PEOPLE?” While working at one of the most far left governments in the country, she portrays her life as working within a system of white supremacist oppression. In one posting, she added at the end “White man calling, I got to go.”

While the Kabir administration pays her $75,600, she is not happy with having to work to feed herself due to this white supremacist, capitalist system. Instead, she posts how she should be a “collage artist” or a “lady of leisure.” However, her preferred job description may not resonate with employers outside of the City of College Park government: “I need a new job, but the problem is that I don’t want to work I just wanna lay in my bed being a girl can anyone help me with this?”

Yet, she says capitalism is to blame for forcing her back into criminal conduct: “Tired of being so underpaid also tired of applying to new jobs. I don’t wanna go back to s*lling dr*gs but this economy is getting desperate.” Of course, these postings may lead many to ask the same question raised by Carter herself: “I SWEAR I AM WHEEZING WHO HIRES THESE PEOPLE?”

The city has announced that it will look into the matter.

The fact is that Carter has free speech rights in the system that she is committed to burning down. The question is whether the City of College Park would support the same free speech rights for an employee who attacked minorities on social media and called for liberation or violence for white people. We have previously discussed the double standard often applied in academia.

Radical professors are often lionized on campuses. At the University of California Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. 

We have also seen professors advocating detonating white people,” denouncing policecalling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservativescalling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters, and other outrageous statements. University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis defended the murder of a conservative protester and said he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. The university later elevated Loomis to director of graduate studies of history.

Conversely, that support was far more muted or absent when conservative faculty have found themselves at the center of controversies. The recent suspension of Ilya Shapiro is a good example. Other faculty have had to go to court to defend their free speech rights. One professor was suspended for being seen at a controversial protest.

If the City of College Park is going to defend free speech rights, it needs to be clear that it will extend equally to all views and all employees.

As we watch how this controversy will play out, the postings do offer another insight into the radical chic in America, including the call for revolution while hoping to realize the dream of being “lady of leisure.” So, it is not just companies who are complaining about the lack of work ethic among young workers. Revolutionaries are facing the same motivational issues. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote “IT HAS been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.”

They added that in a capitalist system

“Each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape . . .  if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood. . . . in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity, but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow.”

So, in other words, collage artists unite against the yoke of the bourgeois City of College Park and their capitalist masters.

Oh Canada: The Parliament Moves to Impose Potential Life Imprisonment for Speech Crimes


JonathanTurely.org | March 14, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/14/oh-canada-the-parliament-moves-to-impose-potential-life-imprisonment-for-speech-crimes/

We have previously discussed the unrelenting attacks by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his allies on free speech. There has been a steady criminalization of speech, including even jokes and religious speech, in Canada. Now, the Canadian parliament is moving toward a new change that would allow the imposition of life imprisonment on those who post views deemed supportive of genocide. With a growing movement calling Israel’s war in Gaza “genocide,” the potential scope of such a law is readily apparent. That appears to be its very draw for anti-free speech advocates in the country.

The Online Harms Act, or Bill C-63 increases the potential penalties from five years to life imprisonment. It also increases the penalty for the willful promotion of hatred (a dangerously ill-defined crime) from two years to five years. The proposed changes constitute a doubling down on Canada’s commitment to reducing free speech for citizens despite criticism from many in the civil liberties community.

There is also a chilling option for house arrest if a judge believes a defendant “will commit” an offense. In other words, if a judge thinks that a citizen will be undeterred and try to speak freely again.

Justice Minister Arif Virani employed the same hysteria to convince citizens to surrender their freedoms to the government. He expressed how terrified he was with the potential of free speech, stating that he is “terrified of the dangers that lurk on the internet for our children.”

It is not likely to end there. Today the rationale is genocide. However, once the new penalties are in place, a host of other groups will demand similar treatment for those with opposing views on their own causes.  This law already increased the penalties for anything deemed hateful speech.

The law comes after Canada blocked a Russian dissident from becoming a citizen because of her violation of Russian anti-free speech laws. In a telling act, the government said that the same conduct (i.e., free speech) could be a crime in Canada.  Indeed, it may now be punished even more harshly.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Demolition Crew

A.F. BRANCO | on March 14, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-demolition-crew-2/

Democrats Saving Democracy
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

Democrats and Biden continue to shout about saving “democracy.” What they’re really saying is that they want to save and preserve their power in perpetuity at the expense of our Constitutional Republic. Lawfare is one example.

Guest Op-Ed: The Threat to Democracy Is NOT Donald Trump

By Jim Nelles

Imagine, if you will, a country in which local, state, and federal prosecutors coordinate with the ministry of justice, foreign-born billionaires, and the nation’s leader to keep the leader of the opposition party off the election ballot, and then bankrupt and imprison that opposition leader.

That country would face sanctions from the civilized world. Corporate media would decry the role of thugs who want to take the voice of the people away by denying them the ability to vote for their candidate of choice. Perhaps people would even take to the streets to protest such actions and the death of democracy. That could only happen in a third-world banana republic, right? After all, aren’t those the tactics of Putin in Russia, Maduro in Venezuela, and Castro in Cuba? READ MORE…

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.

Former MLB slugger Steve Garvey edges ahead of Adam Schiff in California US Senate primary


Stepheny Price By Stepheny Price Fox News | Published March 13, 2024 4:44pm EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-mlb-slugger-steve-garvey-edges-ahead-adam-schiff-california-us-senate-primary

Baseball legend Steve Garvey has edged ahead of U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff in California’s U.S. Senate primary. As of Wednesday morning, Garvey, a former 10-time MLB All-Star, led Schiff by an incredibly slim margin of just 4,801 votes with more than 5 million votes tallied — about 85% of expected returns.

“As California’s votes are counted, it’s clear that our message of unity, common sense, and compassion resonates across the state,” Garvey said. “I am deeply honored by the trust and support shown in these preliminary results. 

Despite millions being spent against Garvey in the state’s most expensive U.S. Senate primary election, Garvey’s trajectory is remaining competitive to finish in first place.

‘ARROGANT’ DEMOCRATS ‘MASSIVELY SURPRISED’ BY EX-MLB STAR’S SURGE IN CALIFORNIA SENATE RACE, STEVE HILTON SAYS

California Senate primary election
Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, left, and Republican challenger Steve Garvey are likely to face off against one another in California’s Senate election in November.  (Getty Images)

“I’m energized by our campaign’s momentum and ready for the challenge ahead,” Garvey said. “I look forward to a spirited campaign on the critical issues facing us.”

Schiff, one of the leading Democrats in the U.S. House, will face Garvey, a Republican, in November to determine who succeeds the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein. California also puts all candidates, regardless of party, on the same primary ballot, and the two who get the most votes advance to the general election.

EX-MLB STAR IN STATISTICAL TIE WITH SCHIFF IN CALIFORNIA SENATE RACE, SAYS VOTERS ARE ‘MAD’ AT DEMOCRATS

Steve Garvey talking to a veteran
“One of my focuses is going to be getting back to taking care of these veterans, men and women, who sacrificed their lives for our country and not dismiss them once they’re out of service or trying to get back into society,” Garvey told Fox News Digital. (Steve Garvey)

Republican hasn’t been elected to represent California in the U.S. Senate since Pete Wilson in 1988, when he won re-election over Leo T. McCarthy. Wilson stepped down when he became governor of California in 1991 and appointed John Seymour to serve in his place.

Feinstein defeated Seymour in the state’s 1992 election and held the seat until her death in September. Laphonza Butler was appointed to serve out the remainder of Feinstein’s term.

Garvey said his campaign is about bringing together Californians from all walks of life to address shared challenges. 

MLB GREAT STEVE GARVEY LOOKS TO REVIVE ‘HEARTBEAT’ OF CALIFORNIA ‘FOR ALL THE PEOPLE’ WITH SENATE RUN

California Senate race
Schiff and Garvey are vying for the California Senate seat formerly held by the late Sen. Diane Feinstein.  (Getty Images)

“I will continue to listen, learn, and lead with compassion and work to build consensus on the real issues that matter to our communities. Thank you to everyone who believes in the California comeback, together, we will make that vision a reality,” Garvey said. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The race will not be finalized until all mail-in ballots are counted, including ballots postmarked on March 5.

Fox News Digital’s Kyle Morris and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Judge Dismisses 6 Charges in Georgia Trump Indictment Ahead of Expected Fani Willis Decision


By: Katelynn Richardson @katesrichardson / March 13, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/13/judge-dismisses-6-charges-in-georgia-trump-indictment-ahead-of-expected-fani-willis-decision/

Judge Scott McAfee sided with defendants in Georgia in a motion to toss certain counts of former President Donald Trump’s indictment. Pictured: Trump speaks during an election-night watch party at Mar-a-Lago on March 5, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The judge overseeing the racketeering case against former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants in Georgia dismissed six counts of the indictment Wednesday. Judge Scott McAfee, who is expected to soon decide whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will be disqualified from the case over an alleged conflict of interest, sided with defendants in a separate motion to toss certain counts.

dailycallerlogoHe wrote that six counts did not “give the Defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the Defendants could have violated the Constitutions and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways.”

McAfee’s ruling said that the state can still bring new indictments on the six charges, which all center on “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer.”

“The Court’s concern is less that the State has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the Defendants—in fact it has alleged an abundance,” he wrote. “However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned’s opinion, fatal. As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited.”

“Under the standards articulated by our appellate courts, the special demurrer must be granted, and Counts 2, 5, 6, 23, 28, and 38 quashed,” he wrote.

McAfee noted in a footnote that his order does not “mean the entire indictment is dismissed.”

“The State may also seek an indictment supplementing these six counts,” he wrote. He also denied defendants’ efforts to dismiss certain overt acts contained in the indictment.

“The Court made the correct legal decision to grant the special demurrers and quash important counts of the indictment brought by DA Fani Willis,” Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead defense counsel, said in a statement provided to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The counts dismissed against President Trump are 5, 28 and 38, which falsely claimed that he solicited GA public officials to violate their oath of office,” Sadow continued. “The ruling is a correct application of the law, as the prosecution failed to make specific allegations of any alleged wrongdoing on those counts. The entire prosecution of President Trump is political, constitutes election interference, and should be dismissed.”

McAfee is also expected to rule on the motion to disqualify Willis by the end of the week. Trump co-defendant Michael Roman accused Willis in a Jan. 8 motion of financially benefiting from appointing her lover Nathan Wade to work as special prosecutor on the case.

Willis and Wade have denied the relationship began before he was hired, though a close friend of Willis testified it began in 2019 and Wade’s former law partner supplied details about their relationship starting earlier to the attorney who filed the motion.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

‘The Pain Grows Every Day,’ says Woman Who Lost Daughter, Mother in Crash with Vehicle Smuggling Illegal Aliens


BY: Virginia Allen @Virginia_Allen5 / March 13, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/13/pain-grows-everyday-says-woman-who-lost-daughter-mother-crash-vehicle-smuggling-illegals/

Emilio Tambunga and his daughter Elisa Tambunga sit on a couch holding pictures of their family members killed in a car crash with a human smuggler.
Emilio Tambunga and his daughter, Elisa Tambunga, lost two of their family members in a car wreck with a vehicle driven by a man said to be a human smuggler in Ozona, Texas, on March 13, 2023. (Photo: The Daily Signal)

One year ago, Wednesday, Elisa Tambunga lost her mother and daughter at the hands of a human smuggler. 

Rassian Comer is accused of speeding through a red light in Ozona, Texas, crashing into Maria Tambunga’s pickup truck. Seven-year-old Emilia was in the back seat, and both she and her grandmother were pronounced dead at the scene of the crash on March 13, 2023. Comer had 11 illegal aliens in his vehicle and was running from police when he collided with Tambunga’s truck. 

“Today marks a year, but the pain grows every day,” Elisa Tambunga told The Daily Signal on Wednesday. “I have vivid flashbacks of how cold they were. How helpless I felt. It plays back for me in slow motion,” the mother said, adding, “That’s why my family and I fight so hard. That is why we haven’t let up.” 

About a month after the accident, Tambunga, her father, and her sister traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with members of Republicans’ Congressional Hispanic Conference and with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. In July, Tambunga testified before Congress, sharing her horrific story and calling for border security. 

“We live in a constant state of pain and grief,” Tambunga said. “We all know that our mom and Emilia were selfless, caring, and loving, and now we try to carry that on by seeking justice and doing our part to ensure this never happens to another family.”

The grandmother and granddaughter were driving home from a play date with cousins when the crash occurred. Two of the illegal aliens Comer was smuggling were also killed in the car accident. 

Gin Jespersen, Tambunga’s sister, lost her mother and her niece that day and told The Daily Signal that Wednesday marks “one year of suffering, crying, and bewilderment as to why [President Joe] Biden and Mayorkas continue to assault their own American citizens at the behest of an ideology to change the fabric of America.”

“It is through death, crime, and injury to Americans like our mom, Maria, and Emilia, 7, that he meets his goal,” she said, adding: “Sinful. Shameful.”

Wednesday was not only the first anniversary of the death of the grandmother and granddaughter, but also the first day of the trial of a man said to be a human smuggler.

Comer, a U.S. citizen, faces multiple charges, including capital murder. The case is being heard in the Crockett County Courthouse, in Ozona, Texas, about 230 miles west of Austin. 

Tragically, Maria and Emilia Tambunga are not the only Americans to have died as a result of the crisis along the southern border. 

  • University of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley was killed in February while jogging. The lead suspect in her slaying is an illegal immigrant from Venezuela. 
  • On March 6, Travis Wolfe, 12, died after being on life support for three months following a car crash with an illegal immigrant. The illegal alien was driving the wrong way at more than 70 mph in Hazelwood, Missouri. 
  • An illegal alien is charged in the fatal shooting of 2-year-old Jeremy Poou-Caceres in Maryland in February. The little boy and his mom were out for a walk when they were caught up in the crossfire of an illegal alien who was in a car and firing, allegedly at another group of people.
  • And in October, 46- year-old Francisco Javier Cuellar was found dead in a home in Florida. An illegal alien from Honduras pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in Cuellar’s death. 

Since Biden became president in January 2021, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has reported encountering more than 8.8 million illegal aliens on America’s borders and at ports of entry. That total doesn’t include what the agency calls 1.7 million “known gotaways.” CBP also said it has encountered about 1,500 individuals on America’s terrorist watchlist at the border since Biden took office. 

While speaking to the press aboard Air Force One on Monday, Biden was asked when “executive action on the border” was coming. The president responded: “I’m counting on the border action happening by itself, the—passing it,” referring to Congress taking action. 

So far, Congress has been unable to find agreement on border security legislation. The House passed a border security bill, HR 2, last May, but the Senate has not taken up the bill. The Senate considered a border bill in February, but it failed in the upper chamber with Republicans citing concerns over the bill’s failure to secure the border and instead enshrining open-border policies into law. 

On this week’s edition of the “Problematic Women” podcast, we discuss the many lives lost due to America’s current border crisis. Also on today’s show, we discuss the House’s passage of the TikTok bill and the choice before the social media company. Plus, rumors are flying over the whereabouts of Kate Middleton, the princess of Wales. Why do people care so much? We discuss that.

And as always, we’ll be crowning our “Problematic Woman of the Week.”


The Hunted and the Hunter: How the Menendez Superseding Indictment Shatters Hunter Biden’s Claim of Selective Prosecution

Below is my column in Fox.com on the superseding indictment of Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), who faces new charges after the cooperation of a former associate. The new charges only magnified the striking similarities between the corruption scandals involving Menendez and Hunter Biden. The timing could not be more interesting given filings the same week by Hunter Biden claiming selective prosecution.

Here is the column:

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., was in court this week for another superseding indictment brought by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. Rather than the four original counts, he now faces 18 counts with his wife, Nadine Arslanian Menendez, and alleged co-conspirators Wael Hana and Fred Daibes.

What is most notable is not the proliferation of counts but the lack of comparative charges in the pending case against Hunter Biden. Some of us have long raised concerns over the striking similarity in the alleged conduct in both cases, but the absence of similar charges against the president’s son. That contrast just got even greater.

The allegations in the two cases draw obvious comparisons.

Menendez is accused of accepting a $60,000 Mercedes-Benz as part of the corrupt practices. In Hunter’s case, it was a $142,000 Fisker sports car.  For Menendez, there were gold bars worth up to $120,000. For Biden, there was the diamond allegedly worth $80,000. Underlying both cases are core allegations of influence peddling and corruption. However, the Justice Department threw the book at Menendez while minimizing the charges against Biden. That includes charging Menendez as an unregistered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Many of us have said for years that the treatment of Hunter under FARA departs significantly from the treatment of various Trump figures like former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort as well as Menendez.

Now, there is a new layer of troubling comparisons to be drawn in the two cases.

The superseding indictment incorporates new charges after the plea and cooperation of Menendez’s former co-defendant and businessman Jose Uribe.

Uribe appears to have supplied the basis for some of the new charges, including a telling account with Nadine Menendez. She allegedly asked Uribe what he would say to law enforcement about the payments used for a Mercedes-Benz convertible and Uribe said that he could say that the payment were a “loan.”  Nadine Menendez responded that “sounded good.”

The loan discussion hit a familiar cord with those of us who have written about the Biden corruption scandal. The Bidens have repeatedly referred to payment from foreign sources as “loans.” That most notoriously included millions given by his counsel Kevin Morris. In some cases, foreign money was received by President Joe Biden’s brother James and then immediately sent to the president’s personal account marked as a loan repayment. James admitted that the $40,000 was coming from the Chinese.

The Justice Department in the Menendez case dismissed the claim of loans as merely a transparent effort to hide influence peddling. That includes not just the convertible payment but  more than $23,000 that one businessman made toward the senator’s wife’s mortgage.

Menendez and Biden share the array of luxury gifts, cars, and loans. However, the most important common denominator was the underlying corruption. Both cases are classic examples of influence peddling, which has long been a cottage industry in Washington, D.C. What they do not share is the same level of prosecution or press support. Menendez is a pariah in Washington and Hunter is the president’s son.

Menendez is blamed by many inside the Beltway not for being corrupt but for being open about it. The fact that others have been prosecuted for conduct similar to his own has not stopped Hunter from claiming victim status. He has told courts that even the few charges brought against him are evidence of selective prosecution.

In the most recent filing, Special Counsel David Weiss dismissed many of Hunter’s claims as “patently false” and noted that Hunter Biden virtually flaunted his violations and engaged in obvious efforts to evade taxes and hide his crimes. Weiss further noted that other defendants did not write “a memoir in which they made countless statements proving their crimes and drawing further attention to their criminal conduct.” It was a devastating take-down of Hunter’s claims, but it did not address the conspicuous omission of charges brought against Menendez, including FARA charges.

It also does not address the fact that the Justice Department not only allowed the statute of limitations to run on major crimes but sought to finalize an obscene plea agreement with no jail time for Hunter. It only fell apart when a judge decided to ask a couple of cursory questions of the prosecutor, who admitted that he had never seen an agreement this generous for a defendant. Weiss noted in his filing that they filed new charges only after Hunter’s legal counsel refused to change the agreement and insisted that it remained fully enforceable.

As Hunter continues to claim to be the victim of selective prosecution in various courts, judges need only to look over the Menendez case to see the truth of the matter. Hunter is not the victim of selective prosecution but the beneficiary of special treatment in the legal system.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney. He is a Fox News contributor.

England’s top health authority just came out against puberty blockers for Children


By: JOSEPH MACKINNON | MARCH 12, 2024

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/england-s-top-health-authority-just-came-out-against-puberty-blockers-for-children-2667497628.html/

NHS England admitted Tuesday that puberty blockers are neither safe nor effective.

Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists, also called GnRHa drugs, have long been used to chemically castrate sex offenders. In recent years, these sex offender drugs were rebranded as puberty blockers and offered to confused children — despite ample evidence that such treatments create sexless adults, deplete victims’ bone density, hamper cognitive development, and produce a myriad of adverse emotional effects.

While these transmogrifying treatments remain legal in American blue states, across the Atlantic, resistance is growing among some early adopters. That’s certainly the case in the United Kingdom, where England’s top health authority has pumped the brakes on the victimization of children captive to the notion that their sex and gender are somehow misaligned. National Health Service England confirmed Tuesday that minors will no longer be prescribed puberty blockers at so-called gender identity clinics.

NHS England has been working up to this decision for years, having commissioned an independent expert review of gender identity services for minors in September 2020.

The health service figured it was prudent to pursue such a review in light of the massive spike in referrals for minors to the Gender Identity Development Service run by the scandal-plagued and soon-to-be shuttered Tavistock clinic and the Portman NHS Foundation Trust. Whereas there were 250 referrals to the NHS’ gender clinic in between 2011 and 2012, that number skyrocketed to over 5,000 between 2021 and 2022.

NHS England also noted at the outset of the review that “a significant number” of children seeking puberty blockers were mentally compromised and presenting with “other mental health needs and risky behaviors,” prompting careful consideration and additional research.

policy document dated March 12 states, “Puberty suppressing hormones (PSH) are not available as a routine commissioning treatment option for treatment of children and young people who have gender incongruence / gender dysphoria.”

The document notes that “[g]ender atypical behavior is common among young children and may be part of normal development. … Children who meet the criteria for gender incongruence / gender dysphoria may or may not continue to experience the conflict between their physical gender and the one with which they identify into adolescence and adulthood.”

often just a fleeting fad, the NHS noted that puberty blockers don’t do what LGBT activists claim they do. The NHS-commissioned review found that across nine observational studies, “there was no statistically significant difference in gender dysphoria, mental health, body image and psychosocial functioning in children and adolescents treated with GnRHA.”

In addition to recognizing that the supposed problem puberty blockers are supposed to resolve is

This finding resonates with the explosive Finnish study published last month in the esteemed journal BMJ Mental Health that found sex-change medical interventions “do not have an impact on suicide risk.” Extra to noting that puberty blockers effectively don’t help, the NHS noted that they can actually do considerable harm: “GnRHa may reduce the expected increase in lumbar or femoral bone density during puberty.”

“We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of PSH to make the treatment routinely available at this time,” concluded NHS England.

This announcement came just days after leaked internal documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health showed proponents of so-called gender-affirming care privately admit that sex-change medical interventions are often unethical and unscientific.

The Independent reported that the NHS will be rolling out two new services, one in London and the other in Liverpool. Rather than sterilize children, these clinics will provide patients with access to mental health and pediatric health experts, “resulting in a holistic approach to care.” The Conservative government applauded the decision.

Health Minister and parliamentarian Maria Caulfield said she welcomed “this groundbreaking change as children’s safety and well-being are paramount.”

Caulfield told the Independent, “Ending the routine prescription of puberty blockers will help ensure that care is based on evidence, expert clinical opinion and is in the best interests of the child.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Wednesday, March 13, 2024

Top Stories
Joe Biden’s New Budget Would Force Taxpayers to Fund Abortions Up to Birth
Joe Biden Isn’t “Pro-Choice,” He’s a Cheerleader for Abortions Up to Birth
• Trump Challenges Biden to Debate: “Anytime, Anywhere, Any Place”
• Catholic Bishop Slams Biden’s Abortion Agenda: “Killing an Unborn Child” is Not Health Care

More Pro-Life News
• Bill Gates is a Radical Population Control Activist Following in Margaret Sanger’s Footsteps
• New Poll Claiming Americans are Pro-Abortion is Very Biased
• Polls Show Americans Thought Joe Biden’s State of the Union Was the Worst in 25 Years
• Quit Trashing Christians, Our Nation Desperately Needs Christian Values Right Now
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Joe Biden’s New Budget Would Force Taxpayers to Fund Abortions Up to Birth


Joe Biden Isn’t “Pro-Choice,” He’s a Cheerleader for Abortions Up to Birth


Trump Challenges Biden to Debate: “Anytime, Anywhere, Any Place”

Catholic Bishop Slams Biden’s Abortion Agenda: “Killing an Unborn Child” is Not Health Care

Bill Gates is a Radical Population Control Activist Following in Margaret Sanger’s Footsteps

 

New Poll Claiming Americans are Pro-Abortion is Very Biased

Polls Show Americans Thought Joe Biden’s State of the Union Was the Worst in 25 Years

Quit Trashing Christians, Our Nation Desperately Needs Christian Values Right Now

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Even Liberal Lawyers Slam New Alabama IVF Law Allowing Destruction of Human Being

Ireland Overwhelmingly Defeats Referendum to Eliminate Motherhood, Remove Women From Its Constitution

Joe Biden Thinks Unborn Babies Must be Killed to Help Women, He’s Wrong

Radical Abortion Activists Celebrated National Hug Your Abortionist Day

Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.

The Latest Black Conservative That Leftists Despise: Mark Robinson

They Prayed for Years to Save a Baby From Abortion and It Finally Happened

FDA Put Women at Risk By Denying Abortion Pill’s Risks and Dangers

700 Doctors and Nurses Urge British Government to Protect Babies From Abortions

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Boody Call

A.F. BRANCO | on March 13, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-boody-call/

Fani Willis Corruption
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

It looks like Fani Willis’ deranged passion for destroying President Trump bit off more than she expected, like her own fanny. Her corruption has been exposed and has jeopardized her case against Trump.

NEW REPORT: Fani Willis Conspired with Liz Cheney’s Faux J6 Committee – J6 Committee Shared Video Recordings with Fani Willis But Then Deleted the Video to Prevent Republican Lawmakers from Gaining Access To It

By Jim Hoft – March 12, 2024

Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) released his January 6 Initial Findings Report on Monday, March 11. Rep. Loudermilk is the Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman. “For nearly two years former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s January 6th Select Committee promoted hearsay and cherry-picked information to promote its political goal – to legislatively prosecute former President Donald Trump,” said Chairman Loudermilk on Monday.

“It was no surprise that the Select Committee’s final report focused primarily on former President Trump and his supporters, not the security failures and reforms needed to ensure the United States Capitol is safer today than in 2021.” READ MORE…

 DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.

Loophole In ‘Weak’ North Carolina Voter ID Law Lets Just About Anyone Cast A Ballot


BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | MARCH 12, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/12/loophole-in-weak-north-carolina-voter-id-law-lets-just-about-anyone-cast-a-ballot/

Sign in New Hampshire requiring photo ID

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

MORE ARTICLES

North Carolinians who didn’t present a photo ID when voting during the presidential primary last week were still permitted to cast a ballot, thanks to exceptions that Soros-backed groups supported including in the state’s voter ID law.

On March 5, more than 1.7 million North Carolina voters were asked to show a photo ID to vote in the presidential primary, in the first major election since the law went into effect. Most of those voters appeared to successfully present an ID and cast a ballot. Still, according to preliminary counts, more than 1,000 voters cast what is known as a “provisional ballot” due to “ID not provided,” according to the state’s election board (NCSBE). Of those more than 1,000 voters, 546 later returned to show their IDs. But another 607 voters never showed a photo ID, instead simply signing a form claiming that a “reasonable impediment” prevented them from presenting an ID.

The Law Doesn’t Actually Compel Voters to Show Photo ID

The North Carolina general assembly initially passed a series of election-related laws in 2013. After facing legal challenges to the voter ID requirement, the state legislature presented a revised voter ID law in 2015 that included the “reasonable impediment” exception, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit nevertheless struck down the voter ID requirement in 2016. Republicans spent the next several years fighting in the courts to pass some type of voter ID laws while North Carolinians voted in 2018 to approve a state constitutional amendment establishing a photo ID requirement.

Most recently, the North Carolina Supreme Court — which had flipped from a Democrat-majority to a Republican-majority — overturned a past decision by the same court and thus permitted the photo ID requirement to go into effect.

The current version says that a voter who does not present a photo ID due to a “reasonable impediment” may still cast a provisional ballot so long as he provides “a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document,” his voter registration card, or the last four digits of his Social Security number and birth date.

If a voter still fails to present any of those documents, the law says he can simply complete a declaration stating that he is who he says he is — aka the “honor system.” He must also designate on the form that a “reasonable impediment” — such as disability or illness, lack of transportation, lack of birth certificate or other documents needed to obtain a photo ID, work schedule, or family responsibilities — has prevented him from providing an ID. Other acceptable reasons include a voter having lost his ID or simply “not know[ing] photo ID was required for voting.”

The ID exception form is also accepted for mail-in voters who cannot include a copy of their photo ID with their ballots, according to voting instructions posted by the Mecklenburg County government.

‘Nobody Will Be Turned Away’

Thirty-six other states currently mandate some form of voter ID, but Republicans who have worked on election integrity efforts say North Carolina’s law is the “weakest” of them all.

“You can literally put any kind of excuse you want on the ‘Reasonable Impediment’ form and be given a ballot. It’s not hard at all to vote,” Chairman of the Lee County Republican Party James Womack told The Federalist.

“This ‘Reasonable Impediment’ thing is really a weakness in the law, it’s the weakest voter ID law in the country when you consider almost anyone can walk in and say ‘Oh, I lost my ID’ and cast a provisional ballot,” Womack continued. “They really didn’t make an attempt this year, in Senate Bill 747, to update anything that was in the case of ‘Reasonable Impediment.’”

Executive Director of Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina Jay DeLancy wrote in 2015 after an earlier, similar version of the law was passed that it was a “stunning betrayal” to all state residents who wanted to see “real voter ID” laws. DeLancy said at the time that, while he did not believe Republicans in the legislature purposely gutted the photo ID provisions, “their inexperience in election fraud analysis leads them to believe the new loophole ‘won’t be a big deal’ in our state.”

Provisional ballots can theoretically be rejected, but those cast based on a “reasonable impediment” to providing voter ID can only be rejected if a county elections board unanimously finds that the information a voter gives in the ID exception form is false. It’s unclear, however, how a county board would be able to discern whether a person’s claimed impediment to obtaining an ID is genuine. Besides, Womack noted these voters likely wouldn’t be rejected due to a fear that lawsuits would be lodged alleging voter suppression.

“What they did, this law, neuters the ability of the board to reject those ballots no matter how ridiculous the excuse is that the voter uses,” DeLancy told The Federalist. “It defies common sense.”

DeLancy told The Federalist he believes Republicans in the legislature thought they would be “clever” and include the “reasonable impediment” provision as a way to avoid having the voter ID law tossed.

Womack speculated that then-House Rules Chairman Rep. David Lewis included the last-minute “compromise language” to help the legislation pass. He noted Republicans had to work in bipartisan fashion since, at the time, they did not hold a supermajority in either state legislature and the Reasonable Impediment provision would alleviate concerns from the left that there would be an “undue burden on people who didn’t have photo ID.”

Womack said the provision likely didn’t get much attention since the legislation got stuck in the courts for years but argued that now that it has gone into effect “people are starting to expose its weaknesses.”

“There’s all kinds of excuses you can put on the form and you’ll still be granted the right to vote, nobody will be turned away,” he added.

DeLancy said the provision should be fixed ahead of November’s election “or else” it leaves the door open for potential abuse.

Soros-Linked Group Cheered ‘Reasonable Impediment’ Exception

When North Carolina’s 2013 law was challenged in court shortly after it was signed, the leftist groups behind the legal fight included the NAACP and the Advancement Project. The Advancement Project had received nearly $4 million between 1999 and 2012 from the Soros-funded Open Society Project. The Foundation to Promote Open Society contributed more than half a million to the Advancement Project between 2009 and 2012, according to Influence Watch. Later suits targeting the law were brought by other election-interference groups like the ACLU.

When Republicans proposed a revision adding the “reasonable impediment” exception to the law in 2015, the Soros-backed group Democracy North Carolina spent weeks “encouraging hundreds of citizens to attend and speak out” at hearings regarding the legislation and celebrated the inclusion of the “reasonable impediment” provision.


Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

Not A Single Democrat Witness In Congress Agreed Only Citizens Should Vote In Federal Elections


BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | MARCH 12, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/12/not-a-single-democrat-witness-in-congress-agreed-only-citizens-should-vote-in-federal-elections/

Witnesses testify at Senate Judiciary Hearing

None of Democrats’ witnesses in a congressional hearing Tuesday could say resolutely that they believe only citizens should be able to vote in a federal election.

During a Senate Judiciary Hearing on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee asked the witnesses to provide a basic “yes” or “no” answer to a series of questions about non-citizens voting.

“Do you believe that only citizens of the United States should be able to vote in federal elections?” Lee asked each of the witnesses.

“We don’t have a position about non-citizens voting in federal elections, we believe that’s what the current laws are, and so we’re certainly fighting for everyone who is eligible under current law to vote,” Executive Director of The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Damon T. Hewitt said.

“That’s a decision of the state law but I want to emphasize –” President of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project Lydia Camarillo said.

“It’s a decision of state law as to who should vote in federal elections?” Lee interjected.

“States decide who gets to vote in various elections, and in federal elections I believe that we should be encouraging people to naturalize and then vote,” Camarillo said.

“Okay but you’re saying that the federal government should have no say in who votes in a federal election?” Lee pressed.

“I don’t have a position on that,” Camarillo responded.

Director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project Sophia Lin Lakin told Lee, “Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections and our focus is on enabling all eligible voters to be able to vote and cast their ballot.”

Only two witnesses, counsel at Public Interest Legal Foundation Maureen Riordan and Manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation Hans von Spakovsky said they do not believe non-citizens should be able to vote. Both were Republican witnesses.

Lee then asked all the witnesses whether “people registering to vote should provide documentary proof of their citizenship in order to register to vote.” Hewitt replied the real question is how asking people to provide proof of citizenship affects them.

“I think your first question kind of answers the second. Based upon the applicable rules, federal or state elections, what have you, we know we have to follow those rules. The question is what is the impact of those rules?” He said in response.

Camarillo called the question “redundant” and said, “It’s already being asked.”

Current federal law stipulates voters must simply check on a form that they are a U.S. citizen, but they do not have to provide any proof.

Lakin flat-out argued asking people to prove they are U.S. citizens to vote amounts to discrimination: “Documentary proof of citizenship or requirements are often discriminatory,” she said.

Riordan and Spakovsky agreed voters should be required to prove they are citizens. Lee said he was troubled that not every witness could simply answer “yes” to both of his questions.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Act seeks to federalize all elections by stripping states and local jurisdictions from making changes to their elections without approval from federal bureaucrats. If the legislation is passed, the U.S. Justice Department could essentially take over an election if its left-wing allies claim minority voters are being harmed by something as simple as requiring an ID or proving citizenship to vote.

A federal judge recently ruled Arizona’s law requiring individuals to prove U.S. citizenship in order to vote in a statewide election is not discriminatory and could proceed after leftists lodged a series of suits.

“Arizona’s interests in preventing non-citizens from voting and promoting public confidence in Arizona’s elections outweighs the limited burden voters might encounter when required to provide” proof of citizenship, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.


Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

MORE ARTICLES

Turns Out Biden Lied About Hur, Beau, And Why He Pilfered Classified Documents


BY: DAVID HARSANYI | MARCH 12, 2024

Read ore at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/12/turns-out-biden-lied-about-hur-beau-and-why-he-pilfered-classified-documents/

Elderly man with a poor memory

Author David Harsanyi profile

DAVID HARSANYI

VISIT ON TWITTER@DAVIDHARSANYI

MORE ARTICLES

One of the big takeaways from the newly released transcript of Joe Biden’s two-day interview with Robert Hur is that the special counsel was being exceedingly generous when describing the president as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Much of the conversation with Hur is littered with barely incoherent answers and spiraling word salads. Though, the reader is occasionally entertained by Biden’s blowhard-y non-sequiturs. We learn about Biden’s Corvette — twice. We learn that the president is a frustrated architect but an excellent archer. Biden jokes that there might be risqué pictures of Dr. First Lady Jill Biden.

Then again, the fact that the entire two-day interview isn’t a giant nonsensical rant is not as impressive as his defenders might believe. The president is, indeed, completely coherent at times. And those are the times he’s probably lying.

When Hur released his report last month, for example, it noted that Biden couldn’t recall the year his son died. This is not the kind of event that typically slips a healthy person’s mind — not even one who is constantly trying to emotionally manipulate the public with misleading claims about the cause of his son’s death.

Recall that Biden feigned great anger about this interaction. “There’s even a reference that I don’t remember when my son died,” he barked at reporters when the report was released. “How in the hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself: It wasn’t any of their damn business.”

The transcript shows that it was Biden who brought up his late son Beau, not Hur. The president claimed he believed Beau had died in 2017 or 2018 when he had tragically died of brain cancer in 2015.

Who knows? Maybe Biden forgot what he said? Reading the full context of his answer, and considering the president’s lifelong fabulism, it is not entirely out of the question that the president purposely floated the wrong date to try and justify his pilfering of classified documents. Either way, it’s bad.

Here is the key interaction:

MR. HUR: So, during this time when you were living at Chain Bridge Road and there were documents relating to the Penn Biden Center, or the Biden Institute, or the Cancer Moonshot, or your book, where did you keep papers that related to those things that you were actively working on?

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, um .. . I , I, I, I, I don’ t know. This is, what, 2017, 2018, that area?

MR. HUR: Yes, sir.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Remember, in this timeframe, my son is either been deployed or is dying, and, and so it was and by the way, there were still a lot of people at the time when I got out of the Senate that were encouraging me to run in this period, except the President. I’m not — and not a mean thing to say. He just thought that she had a better shot of winning the presidency than I did. And so I hadn’t, I hadn’t, at this point — even though I’m at Penn, I hadn’t walked away from the idea that I may run for office again. But if I ran again, I’d be running for President. And, and so what was happening, though – what month did Beau die? Oh, God, May 30th –

MS. COTTON: 2015.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: 2015.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Was it 2015 he had died?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: It was May of 2015.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: It was 2015.

By the way, just as Beau did not die in Iraq, Joe was never “at Penn,” not in any real way. The outgoing vice president was bequeathed an honorary professor position at the school, which the Philadelphia Inquirer noted in 2019 was “a vaguely defined role that involved no regular classes and around a dozen public appearances on campus, mostly in big, ticketed events.”

More importantly, Biden also contradicted himself when speaking about the documents themselves.

When Hur asked the president about the classified papers in his possession, the president contended that he “had no purpose for them, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to keep clearly classified documents.” But Hur, in his prepared testimony for Congress, says: “We also identified other recorded conversations during which Mr. Biden read classified information aloud to his ghostwriter.”

So, the documents did have a very specific purpose. Those files were used, according to Amtrak Joe, to help earn $8 million writing a book after leaving the Obama administration. Yet, when the Hur report was released, the left wing did what they always do when confronted with bad news: they feigned a meltdown. They smeared the messenger. They concoct conspiracy theories. They denied reality. They’re doing the same right now.

The media continues to frame Hur’s findings as an exoneration of Biden to head off the (correct) perception that there is a stark, selective prosecution when it comes to the hoarding of classified documents. Donald Trump, yes. Biden and Hillary Clinton, no.

In The New York Times, Charlie Savage begins the paper’s story on the leaked transcripts by misleading readers with the contention that Hur had found “insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden.” This is not true. Hur’s report concluded that Biden came off as too feeble-minded to be convicted by a jury for his decades-long mishandling of classified information. According to the special counsel, the president had “willfully retained classified information.” And he had done it for years before winning the presidency.

During today’s hearing Democrats falsely used the word “exoneration” a number of times. Hur noted that the word “does not appear anywhere in my report, and that is not my conclusion.”

So, the fact remains that there are two ways to look at the Hur report. Either the president lacks the mental acuity to be charged for breaking the law, or he should be charged for breaking the law. Pick one.


David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist, a nationally syndicated columnist, a Happy Warrior columnist at National Review, and author of five books—the most recent, Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent. Follow him on Twitter, @davidharsanyi.

Gaetz presses Hur over not charging Biden ghostwriter: ‘What does somebody have to do?’


Gabriel Hays By Gabriel Hays Fox News | Published March 12, 2024 3:58pm EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-gop-exposes-woke-items-bidens-7-3-trillion-budget

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., grilled former Special Counsel Robert Hur during a House hearing on Tuesday over not charging President Biden’s ghostwriter for destroying evidence pertaining to Hur’s investigation of Biden’s handling of classified documents.

“What does somebody have to do to get charged with obstruction of justice by you?” Gaetz said to Hur, suggesting that the special counsel let Mark Zwonitzer – the ghostwriter on Biden’s memoir “Promise Me, Dad” – off the hook for deleting evidence.

According to Hur’s much-publicized report on the classified documents probe, Zwonitzer erased audio files in his possession that contained “significant evidentiary value” related to the documents held by Biden.

Hur’s report states, “Zwonitzer’s later actions – including the production to the special counsel of transcripts that mention classified information – suggest that his decision to delete the recordings was not aimed at concealing those materials from investigators. Significantly, Zwonitzer voluntarily consented to two interviews and could have, but did not, invoke the Fifth Amendment to decline to produce the transcripts, his laptop, and the external hard drive. And when FBI agents contacted Zwonitzer, they were unaware that audio recordings existed or where Zwonitzer’s electronic devices were located.”

NO CHARGES FOR BIDEN AFTER SPECIAL COUNSEL PROBE INTO IMPROPER HANDLING OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS

Hur speaks to Gaetz
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., grills former Special Counsel Robert Hur during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday. (Screenshot/CSPAN feed)

However, Hur’s report noted that Zwonitzer admitted to the FBI that he “was aware that there was an investigation” when he deleted the evidence, though he denied that he deleted them to prevent investigators from finding them. He also said in the report of the ongoing probe, “I’m not going to say how much of the percentage it was of my motivation.”

Gaetz was nonplussed.

“So, the ghostwriter purposefully deletes this evidence that seems to … show culpability of Biden’s crimes, and you don’t charge him?” Gaetz asked.

Hur said Zwonitzer told investigators he was “aware that I had been appointed special counsel and was conducting an investigation.”

BIDEN ‘DID NOT REMEMBER WHEN HE WAS VICE PRESIDENT,’ WHEN HIS SON, BEAU, DIED DURING SPECIAL COUNSEL INTERVIEWS

Robert Hur, Joe Biden
Special Counsel Robert Hur and President Biden (Getty Images)

Gaetz took it from there, saying, “Just so everybody knows, the ghostwriter didn’t delete the recordings just as a matter of happenstance. Ghostwriter has recordings of Biden making admissions of crime. He then learns that you’ve been appointed. He then deletes the information that is the evidence, and you don’t charge him?”

He then asked what someone would have to do to get charged.

“If, like, deleting evidence of crimes doesn’t count, what would meet the standard?” he added.

Hur explained the decision by saying that as he noted in his report, Zwonitzer did not delete “transcripts of the recordings that he had created, that included inculpatory evidence relating to Mr. Biden.”

Gaetz did not appear to buy the justification for how Hur handled the ghostwriter.

“Oh, so, if you destroy some evidence but not other evidence that somehow absolves you of the evidence you destroy,” he said. “Like, here’s what I see. Zwonitzer should have been charged, wasn’t. Biden and Trump should have been treated equally. They weren’t. And that is the double standard that I think a lot of Americans are concerned about.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Gabriel Hays is an associate editor for Fox News Digital. 

Robert Hur Claps Back at Dems: Biden Not Exonerated


By Mark Swanson    |   Tuesday, 12 March 2024 04:10 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/hur-testimony-house/2024/03/12/id/1156991/

Former Special Counsel Robert Hur corrected House Democrats, who persisted in their assertions during a public hearing that he had “exonerated” President Joe Biden in the classified documents case.

Hur submitted a 345-page report in early February, outlining his decision against charging Biden for mishandling classified docs, but the word “exonerate” does not appear anywhere in his ruling, a fact he brought up multiple times during his hours-long testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Committee ranking member Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., used his opening preamble to say Hur’s report “represents the complete and total exoneration of President Biden.”

“That is not what the report says,” Hur said later in the hearing. “The report is not an exoneration. That word does not appear in my report.”

Committee member Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., also asserted that Hur’s report was a “complete exoneration” of Biden.

“I need to go back and make sure that I take note of a word that you used, exoneration. That is not a word that appears in the report. That’s not part of my task as a prosecutor,” Hur said.

Regardless, Hur’s decision not to charge Biden, exoneration or not, fueled the ire of Republican committee member Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., who railed against Hur’s decision as a “glaring double standard” of justice, given former President Donald Trump is facing a federal trial for mishandling classified docs in Florida.

“The fact the only person being prosecuted for this offense happens to be the president’s political opponent makes it an unprecedented assault on our democracy. This is the worst we could expect from a banana republic,” McClintock told Hur, who is not the special counsel bringing Trump to trial. Jack Smith is.

In fact, Hur left the Justice Department last week.

Hur would not comment further on the difference between the cases, but in his report, he acknowledged Biden’s cooperation vs. Trump’s refusal to hand over classified material. That and the fact Biden is a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

“That’s one of the points you make, President Biden is likely to be an elderly sympathetic person with a poor memory. How does that bear on any individual’s guilt or innocence?” McClintock said. “Isn’t that a question for a judge … after guilt or innocence is determined? Here’s the problem. Donald Trump is being prosecuted for the same act that you’ve documented Joe Biden committed.”

McClintock went on, “All I have to do when I am caught taking home classified materials, ‘I’m sorry, I’m getting old, my memory isn’t so great?’ This is the doctrine that you’ve established in our laws now and it is frightening.”

Hur responded, “Congressman, my intent is certainly not to establish any sort of doctrine. I had a particular task. I had a particular set of evidence to consider and make a judgment to one particular set of evidence and that’s what I did.”

McClintock had the last word.

“The foundation of our justice system is equal justice under law. That’s what gave the law its respect and its legitimacy. … It doesn’t matter who comes before her, all are treated equally. You’ve destroyed this foundation. And the rule of law becomes a sick mockery. It becomes a weapon to wield against political rivals and a tool. And I’m desperately afraid this decision of the Department of Justice has now crossed a very bright line,” he concluded.

Mark Swanson 

Mark Swanson, a Newsmax writer and editor, has nearly three decades of experience covering news, culture and politics.

Biden Gave ‘Not Credible’ Response in Classified Documents Probe, Hur Testifies


By: Fred Lucas @FredLucasWH / March 12, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/12/biden-gave-not-credible-response-in-classified-documents-probe-hur-testifies/

Special counsel Robert K. Hur prepares to testify Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington. Hur investigated President Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents and published a report with contentious conclusions about Biden’s manner and memory. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

President Joe Biden provided information deemed “not credible” to federal prosecutors during an investigation that determined he knowingly retained and shared classified documents, special counsel Robert Hur told the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Hur released his report in February, concluding that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials” after his vice presidency ended in early 2009. However, the special counsel opted not to bring charges, writing that a jury would be unlikely to convict because of Biden’s “diminished faculties in advancing age.”

During the hearing, which went into recess at 1:52 p.m., the committee’s Democrats repeatedly brought up former President Donald Trump’s own classified documents case. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., ranking member of the committee, noted that Trump was charged with trying to obstruct the investigation into classified documents stored at his Florida estate.

“At any point in your investigation, do you have any reason to believe that President Biden lied to you?” Nadler asked, then seemed to be surprised by the answer he got from Hur.

The special counsel named by Attorney General Merrick Garland, a Biden appointee, referred to the Feb. 8 report from his office.

“I do address in my report one response the president gave to a question we posed to him that we deemed to be not credible,” Hur said.

Nadler moved on to talking more about Trump.

But other committee members talked significantly about Biden’s sharing information with the ghostwriter of his 2017 book “Promise Me, Dad,” which the report said Biden was getting up to $8 million to produce for the publisher.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said there were “8 million reasons” why Biden might have knowingly violated the law on classified information.

“It wasn’t just the money, it wasn’t just $8 million,” Jordan said. “It was also his ego. Pride and money is why he knowingly violated the rules.”

Jordan read aloud from Hur’s report: “President Biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his new book.”

“That’s a key word. We’re getting a motive now,” Jordan said, later adding: “Why did he have strong motivations? Because he decided months before leaving office to write a book.”

Later in the hearing, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., asked more about the matter, reading aloud from the transcript in which a federal prosecutor questions Biden.

“Mr. President, why did you share classified information with your ghostwriter?” the lawyer on the special counsel’s team asks.

The president answers: “I did not share classified information. … I guarantee I did not.”

“That’s not true, is it, Mr. Hur?” Gaetz asked.

“That is inconsistent with the evidence of the findings in my report,” Hur responded.

Gaetz followed by asking: “It’s a lie is what regular people would say, right?”

Hur smiled, but didn’t answer directly.

Gaetz read again from the transcript, quoting Biden as saying: “All the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were locked or able to be locked.”

“That wasn’t true either, was it?” Gaetz said.

Hur replied: “That was inconsistent with the findings of our investigation.”

“Another lie, people might say,” Gaetz said.

Report: Trump Did Propose 10,000 National Guard Troops on January 6th


Jonathan Turley | March 12, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/12/report-trump-did-propose-10000-national-guard-troops-on-january-6th/

One of the long-standing unanswered questions from the January 6th riot has been why the Capitol was so poorly prepared and defended on that day. A newly released transcript has caused a firestorm in Washington over allegations that the J6 Committee downplayed or even suppressed evidence that former President Donald Trump personally suggested the deployment of 10,000 national guard troops to prevent violence.

The transcript also includes contradictions of major allegations that ran wild in the media. That includes the claim that Trump tried to physically grab the steering wheel of the presidential limo, “The Beast,” when Secret Service refused to take him to the Capitol. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson was the source of the claim, which appeared in most of the media and was highlighted in her testimony. However, it appears that the J6 Committee had testimony of secret service agents directly contradicting that account, including the driver.

However, it is the National Guard question that is more weighty for historical purposes.

Trump has long claimed that he proposed the deployment of the National Guard troops (as was done previously at the White House during violent protests). The January 6th Committee said that was a lie. The release of the transcript by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R., Ga.) triggered attacks on the J6 Committee. The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway wrote a column titled “Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence.” That triggered an angry response from former co-chair Liz Cheney which led to an even angrier reply from commentator Mark Levin.

The anger is nothing new in a J6 investigation that seemed to produce more heat than light. Cheney’s spokesperson called the Federalist report “flatly false” and added “no transcripts were destroyed” while acknowledging that some material was not published “to allow the Secret Service to protect sensitive security information for interviews of its agents before preserving that testimony in the archives.”

The issue of the suppression or destruction of the evidence has drawn a lot of attention, but the more troubling question is the fact that such an offer was made and declined.

The Committee found “no evidence” that the Trump administration called for 10,000 National Guard members to Washington, D.C., to protect the Capitol. That now stands contradicted, and the question is whether Cheney or other members knew the public was being misled on the question. For example, the Washington Post “debunked” Trump’s comments with an award of “Four Pinocchios.”

The Post’s Glenn Kessler admitted that Trump raised the issue but noted that he might have been suggesting the troops “not because he wanted to protect the Capitol,” but to suggest that he and his supporters were being threatened. He added that “Trump brought up the issue on at least three occasions but in such vague and obtuse ways that no senior official regarded his words as an order.”

However, the issue is not whether Trump issued “an order” but made an offer that was declined. For those of us who were covering the event on that day, the question has always been prominent in our minds. I was critical of Trump’s speech while he was still giving it. However, before the Capitol was breached, I also noted that I had never seen the Capitol so thinly protected in a major protest. We had just seen violent protests outside of the White House with a large number of police officers injured and extensive property damage, including arson. President Trump and his family had to be moved to a secure location out of concern of an imminent breach of the White House. National Guard were deployed and fencing installed.

Even without an offer, it remains unclear why the violence around the White House did not prompt Congress to install the same barriers and deploy the same troops. (They ultimately took both steps but only after the rioters gained entry into the Capitol). Moreover, if an offer was clearly made, it undermines the allegations that Trump was actively seeking an insurrection. While he has never been charged with an insurrection or even incitement, that allegation was used more recently to support his disqualification from the ballots in Colorado, Maine, and Illinois.

The transcript contains the testimony of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato’s interview on January 2022 with Cheney present. Ornato states that he clearly recalled the offer of 10,000 troops being made by Trump in a conversation with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser:

“I was there, and he was on the phone with her and wanted to make sure she had everything that she needed. Because I think it was the concern of anti and pro groups clashing is what I recall…I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, the President wants to make sure that you have enough. You know, he is willing to ask for 10,000. I remember that number.”

Ornato said that Browser said that they would not need the troops. (She ultimately asked for only 300 troops). There are also reports that then Speaker Nancy Pelosi was worried about the “optics” of military reinforcements at the Capitol.

Ornato also said that he recalled that, after Bowser refused additional National Guard members, the White House requested the Defense Department have a “quick reaction force” ready on that day. He gave details on meetings with the Defense Department and follow up from Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Hemingway noted in her report that Ornato’s testimony was supported by former Trump administration aide Kash Patel. Cheney has attacked Patel as unreliable.

Ornato also testified that Meadows and others were frustrated by the delay in getting those troops to the Hill. The delay was blamed on the logistics, not some conspiracy to enable or facilitate an insurrection.

The Federalist article makes additional allegations, including that Cheney was behind an op-ed by her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, opposing any use of national guard troops on January 6th. However, even proving such duplicity would hardly be news for Washington. Likewise, it does not negate criticism over Trump’s comments on that day or his delay in publicly calling for supporters to withdraw.

Yet, again, what is more important historically  is whether the J6 Committee had direct evidence that Trump made the offer of thousands of troops and that the White House pushed for rapid deployment troops on that day.

I have previously criticized the one-sided J6 Report and the biased framing of the hearings held by the members. The Committee could have been so much more than the echo chamber that it became.  However, this latest transcript adds questions over the perplexing failure of Congress to take obvious steps to prevent a riot.

Had Congress simply installed the same fencing previously used at the White House and deployed such troops, the J6 riot would likely have never occurred. Given the cost and trauma to our nation, we should want to know the full story of what occurred on January 6th.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Crooked Skies

A.F. BRANCO | on March 12, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-crooked-skies/

03 FewChips AC 1080
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

With the border out of control, inflation through the roof, and the economy and the world in disaster, due mainly to Bidens and Democrat policies, Crooked Joe has decided to take aim at shrinkflation. Something he himself caused.

Snickers Bar Maker Denies Biden’s State of the Union “Shrinkflation” Charge

By Kristinn Taylor March 11, 2024

The maker of the Snickers candy bar released a statement refuting Joe Biden’s “shrinkflation” charge made in Thursday’s State of the Union address that the candy maker has reduced the size of Snickers bars but kept the same price.

Scott Jennings, a conservative commenter on CNN, queried Mars, Inc., the maker of Snickers for comment. The reply confirmed his suspicions about Biden’s claim “As I suspected. The president is literally slandering a candy bar. Official statement given to me by the ⁦Mars/Snickers people. Will literally slander anything and anyone. Total hack.” READ MORE…

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.

Media Attack New RNC Chair For Election Integrity Efforts, But GOP Critics Say He Could Do More


BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | MARCH 11, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/11/media-attack-new-rnc-chair-for-election-integrity-efforts-but-gop-critics-say-he-could-do-more/

Then-President Donald Trump speaks at rally in North Carolina

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

MORE ARTICLES

The Republican National Committee (RNC) replaced its chairwoman Ronna McDaniel on Friday with the now-former North Carolina Republican Party (NCGOP) chair Michael Whatley, who was the Trump-backed frontrunner. Ever since Whatley’s name was floated, the corporate media predictably deployed the “election denier” smear they assign to any Republican who has ever shown an interest in protecting the integrity of elections.

Whatley has a track record of emphasizing election integrity — and that’s enough, in the eyes of the corporate press, to paint him as a radical election-denying extremist. But with the high stakes of the 2024 election cycle, some of Whatley’s critics say he needs to amp up his election integrity efforts to another level in his anticipated post at the RNC.

Attacks From the Corporate Media

Whatley, who had served as NCGOP chair since narrowly defeating his opponents Jim Womack and John Lewis in 2019, has been the target of hand-wringing pieces from corporate media ever since he was tapped as former President Trump’s choice to lead the RNC. In an MSNBC column, North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton clutched her pearls about the “danger” Whatley poses. 

“It’s clear that Trump is looking for an RNC leader who won’t hesitate to disenfranchise voters, rig elections or dismantle our democracy,” Clayton melodramatically wrote. “[Whatley] has helped lead efforts to defy the will of the people and infringe on North Carolinians’ rights.”

CNN ran a piece entitled “Likely frontrunner for RNC chair parroted Trump’s 2020 election lies.”

Multiple outlets affiliated with States Newsroom — a network launched by a Democrat dark-money group — shuddered at the thought that Whatley teamed up with organizations like Cleta Mitchell’s Election Integrity Network that trains poll watchers, under the headline: “Trump’s pick for RNC chief worked with top election denier’s group.”

Russia hoax lawyer Marc Elias’ Democracy Docket joined in the attacks, saying Trump’s “endorsement of Whatley signals that the party is continuing down its path of pushing false election fraud narratives ahead of the November general election.”

What did Whatley do to be smeared as an election conspiracy theorist? In November 2020, he alleged that there was “massive fraud” in “places like Milwaukee and Detroit and Philadelphia.” Of course, even the Associated Press has admitted the existence of voter fraud in the 2020 election, just simply not enough for their liking to denote it as “widespread.”

As Whatley told CNN, “changes to the 2020 election process … weakened safeguards on absentee and mail-in votes in some states,” which “led to distrust by many across the country.”

Whatley’s Work on Election Integrity

Whatley’s supporters tout major wins for the state’s courts and election integrity efforts under his leadership.

“I think [election integrity] is probably [Whatley’s] greatest strength,” Nash County Republican Party Chair Mark Edwards said. “Coming out of the 2020 election there was a lot of angst and energy among Republicans about election integrity and rather than stoke some of the more outlandish and extreme and outrageous reactions to what happened in 2020, Whatley stood above it and saw that this is where the concerns of the party were.”

“He took it upon himself to grab the election integrity issue by the horns and direct that energy into productive use by setting up the Election Integrity Review Committee within the party,” Edwards added, crediting Whatley with “hiring legal staff to help head up the election integrity efforts of the party, and work very closely with Republican legislators to craft legislation that was drafted, introduced and passed and is now being implemented.”

The NCGOP established the Election Integrity Committee in 2021 to recruit, train and send out attorneys and poll watchers to observe “absentee-by-mail approval meetings, early voting polls, election day polls, county canvasses, recount meetings, and protest hearings.”

In 2022, “Whatley doubled down on his efforts to recruit and train poll observers and lawyers,” said former NCGOP legal counsel Philip Thomas. The NCGOP was unable to provide numbers for how many poll watchers were appointed over the course of Whatley’s tenure. Whatley critic Jay DeLancy, however, said it might be difficult for the NCGOP to obtain that data since individual counties appoint observers and the process is decentralized.

Senior legal fellow at the Conservative Partnership Institute Cleta Mitchell said Whatley “understands that there is more to winning elections than just turning out votes and voters.”

“He has a sense of the need to focus on the election system itself,” Mitchell added. “While sometimes he has too narrow a focus, such as thinking that volunteer lawyers on Election Day will somehow overcome the billions of dollars that the left has invested in changing the entire voting system in our country, Michael is at least aware that there is more to winning than the historic or traditional ‘If we have a good candidate and good issues and a good campaign, our side will win.’ Those days are long gone and at some level, Michael understands that.”

Whatley also created the Judicial Victory Fund, which states its goal is “raising the resources needed to support … statewide conservative judicial candidates.” NCGOP Communications Director Matt Mercer said the fund is “something that really can’t be overstated enough.”

“Whatley campaigned on ‘Reset in Raleigh’ and overturning a 6-1 Republican deficit on the Supreme Court,” Mercer said. “Whatley has been undefeated [in judicial races] in 2020 and 2022 with the Judicial Victory Fund and the partners at the county and district levels.”

Mercer also credits Whatley with helping get voter ID “past the finish line” by flipping the balance of the court, adding while the NCGOP will miss him, “it’s going to be a benefit for the RNC to have someone of his caliber there.”

The fund was particularly handy during the 2020 election for the North Carolina Supreme Court’s chief justice between Democrat incumbent Cheri Beasley and Republican Associate Justice Paul Newby. Beasley refused to concede after she lost by about 400 votes and attempted to restore thousands of ballots. Of the 2,800 of those ballots analyzed by The News & Observer at the time, 70 percent belonged to Democrats and just nine ballots belonged to Republicans.  

Some of the ballots Beasley tried to force election officials to accept were ballots that had already been counted, WRAL News reported. But the NCGOP says her attempts ultimately failed after they used resources from the Judicial Victory Fund to fight back.

Republicans also managed to flip the balance of the state’s Supreme Court in 2022 after Republicans Trey Allen and Richard Dietz won their races, giving Republicans a 5-2 majority. 

“If you’re a state party chairman and you don’t have critics, you probably aren’t doing your job,” former chairman of the NCGOP Tom Fetzer told The Federalist. “It’s something that anybody who has ever been a state party chairman accepts and deals with.”

GOP Critics Say Whatley Could Do More

Womack and John Kane, who tried to unseat Whatley in 2022, say he is being given too much credit and should be doing more for election integrity.

“He’s taking credit for [the Judicial Victory Fund] as a great accomplishment, but the credit needs to be shared with … the attorneys that were working on the judicial campaigns, there were different districts that were raising money,” Womack said. 

And when it comes to fighting to secure elections, Womack said the real effort comes from the RNC. In October, the NCGOP and RNC intervened in a lawsuit wherein Democrats attacked a state senate bill that “prevents non-citizens from voting, protects bipartisan poll watchers, and eliminates dark money in elections.”

“The RNC is taking the lead on their lawyers so the NCGOP is just saying, ‘Me too,’” Womack told The Federalist. “We do have a general counsel who is pretty good but the RNC is the one floating all these costs for the lawsuits nationwide.” Aside from the RNC’s election integrity efforts, he added, grassroots Republicans have also worked behind the scenes to ensure the state has a fair process.

This criticism was echoed by Executive Director of Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina, Jay DeLancy, who claimed the NCGOP only addressed allegations of dead people voting in the Beasley-Newby race after his organization took the lead and began investigating.

“It wasn’t [the NCGOP] idea, it was ours,” DeLancy said, adding however that he was pleased the NCGOP helped ramp up efforts. DeLancy also argued that while he has “no complaints about [the NCGOP] lawsuits” and said he gives “credit” to the “effective” legal action that was taken, securing elections starts from the bottom up.

“Election integrity takes creativity, you have to think about how the bad guys are doing things and get into the process,” he said. “What we’re more concerned with is day-to-day ground game and where people are cheating, where the rubber meets the road at the polls.”

“When things go south at the polls, we train our poll workers to pull out the law and show the clerk where they’re wrong. [NCGOP] doesn’t, they just say, ‘call us’…and log it unless they feel they can take legal action,” DeLancy added. “I would love to have seen someone who took election integrity seriously as RNC chairman but at the end of the day, all they really care about is get out the vote efforts and they’re not serious about election integrity.”

Mitchell expressed similar thoughts, saying while recruiting volunteer lawyers and poll observers is “absolutely vital,” she hopes Whatley “will be open to hearing about and understanding” that Republicans need to “fight the left on every single issue and every inflection point regarding the election system.”

“We cannot hope to counter their massive funding and organizational advantage that has nothing to do with the DNC or the normal political campaigns,” Mitchell said. “We are in a different world now and hopefully, Michael and the new RNC leadership will want to learn and do something about it. Banking early votes or ballot harvesting as a singular strategy has the left rolling in the aisles laughing at us.”

Womack and Kane also expressed concerns about whether Whatley could actually fundraise for the party.

“The state party would be broke if it weren’t for RNC subsidies,” Womack said. Kane also attributed the state party’s funds to the RNC.

Womack acknowledged, however, that Whatley likely wouldn’t need to worry about doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to fundraising because Trump would be able to drum up most of the support himself.

“Trump’s train has left the station,” Womack said. “I think he’s gonna do well regardless of who the RNC chair is so I’m guessing it really doesn’t matter who leads the RNC.”


Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

GOP Slams Biden’s $7.3T Budget, $5.5T in Tax Hikes


By Charlie McCarthy    |   Monday, 11 March 2024 01:49 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/house-gop-leadership/2024/03/11/id/1156805/

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and House GOP leadership members say President Joe Biden’s proposed 2025 fiscal year budget “is a roadmap to accelerate America’s decline.”

Biden on Monday unveiled a $7.3 trillion spending wish list that is as much an election-year pitch to voters — one that slams Republicans and former President Donald Trump by name — as it is a policy proposal.

“The price tag of President Biden’s proposed budget is yet another glaring reminder of this Administration’s insatiable appetite for reckless spending and the Democrats’ disregard for fiscal responsibility,” Johnson, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., and Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., said in a joint statement.

“Biden’s budget doesn’t just miss the mark — it is a roadmap to accelerate America’s decline.”

It has been widely reported Biden wants to raise $5.5 trillion in tax on corporations and high earners during the next decade, the 2025 budget showed. That would help cut the federal deficit and pay for new programs to assist those who make less cope with high housing and child care costs, according to The Associated Press.

“While hardworking Americans struggle with crushing inflation and mounting national debt, the President would increase their pain to spend trillions of additional taxpayer dollars to advance his left-wing agenda,” the GOP leaders said in their statement.

They added that the House Republican Conference has “taken action to steer our nation back to a path of fiscal sanity.”

“Our efforts to rein in the runaway spending spree from last year’s budget have already yielded results, lowering projected deficits by $2.6 trillion over the next decade,” they said in the statement.

“The House’s budget plan for the next fiscal year, preceding the President’s proposal, reflects the values of hardworking Americans who know that in tough economic times, fiscal discipline is non-negotiable. House Republicans understand the American people expect and deserve nothing less from their government.”

Although Biden released his proposed 2025 budget, Congress has yet to pass full funding for federal agencies for the current fiscal year. House Republicans on Thursday issued a plan that aims to balance the federal budget within a decade by cutting $14 trillion in federal spending, including green energy subsides and student loan forgiveness, while reducing taxes. The White House, though, called that plan unworkable.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which provides independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues to support the Congressional budget process, released a Feb. 7 report that offered a budget and economic outlook for 2024 to 2034. In CBO’s projections, federal budget deficits total $20 trillion over the 2025–2034 period and federal debt held by the public reaches 116 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Charlie McCarthy 

Charlie McCarthy, a writer/editor at Newsmax, has nearly 40 years of experience covering news, sports, and politics.

Border Council Chief to Newsmax: Biden Won’t Define Problem


By Brian Freeman    |   Monday, 11 March 2024 12:49 PM EDT

The illegal immigration problem can’t be solved without defining it, making it frustrating that President Joe Biden retracted the “illegal” label of the man who was charged in the murder of nursing student Laken Riley, Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told Newsmax on Monday.

“Its ridiculous that President Biden is not willing to define this problem, and by not defining it, he is not going to come up with solutions,” Judd said on “Wake Up America,” adding that is “what really frustrates every single one of us.”

Judd reiterated that Biden “is not going to come up with a solution to the problem by watering down what this problem actually is.”

Instead, by walking back his comments, Biden is “inviting so many people to cross our borders illegally,” Judd said.

Judd, who has endorsed former President Donald Trump in this year’s presidential election, said that when Biden came into office, he reversed 97 of Trump’s policies on the border, explaining that is why the nation has had a surge in illegal crossings.

Still, Judd said his organization backed a recent bipartisan Senate immigration bill that Trump and Republicans sabotaged.

Judd said that the compromise proposal would have been “absolutely better than what we currently have” by, for example, removing the backed-up judiciary from the process and raising the credible fear standard, which would have severely reduced the number of migrants able to use that argument to stay in the country.

He stressed that his organization wanted to see it to go to the floor for debate and amendment in order to get rid of the bad items that were in the proposal.

Judd, however, blamed Biden for “weaponizing” his group’s backing for the bill by failing to give the “proper context for our support at the time.”

He stressed that this is one of the reasons that the public should have “zero confidence” in the Biden administration.

Brian Freeman 

Brian Freeman, a Newsmax writer based in Israel, has more than three decades writing and editing about culture and politics for newspapers, online and television.

DOJ Keeps Plan Secret for Biden’s Election Executive Order 


By: Fred Lucas @FredLucasWH / March 11, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/11/doj-keeps-plan-secret-for-bidens-election-executive-order/

The Justice Department, run by Attorney General Merrick Garland, is keeping secret its strategic plan to implement President Joe Biden’s executive order on getting out the vote. Pictured: Biden, appearing via teleconference, looks on as Garland attends a meeting Aug. 3, 2022, in the White House complex. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Biden Justice Department continues to claim presidential privilege to block release of its strategic plan to turn out the vote, although at least two other federal agencies have made their plans public. In defending a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, the Justice Department is keeping under wraps its plans to implement President Joe Biden’s 2021 executive order, under which most federal agencies are required to develop a strategic plan for increasing voter participation in elections. 

The plaintiff in that case, the Foundation for Government Accountability, contends that privilege claim is undermined by two federal agencies releasing their plans to implement Biden’s Executive Order 14019, which he signed in March 2021.  Notably, the U.S. Trade Representative, an agency that is part of the Executive Office of the President, made its plan public through a public records request, as The Daily Signal reported last week. The Railroad Retirement Board also released its strategic plan for boosting voting, The Daily Signal reported. 

“Now that at least two agencies have handed out their strategic plans, the Justice Department’s claim [that the plan] is protected by presidential privilege in our case is questionable,” Stewart Whitson, legal director for the Foundation for Government Accountability, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

The Foundation for Government Accountability first sued the Justice Department under the Freedom of Information Act in April 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. 

“The DOJ is supposed to be the arbiter of following the law, and they are doing the opposite,” Whitson said in the interview. 

My book “The Myth of Voter Suppression” details how executives at the liberal think tank Demos—one of the private groups working with federal agencies on voter turnout—drafted an executive order in December 2020, the month before Biden took office, suggesting how he should turn government bureaucracies into voter registration agencies. 

Possibly more ambiguous is the Defense Department, which said it updated an existing strategic plan to fit Biden’s executive order on voting. The Pentagon’s strategic plan isn’t dated, but appears to have been drafted in 2021 after Biden signed the order that March. The Defense Department, unlike most other federal agencies, consistently has dealt with voting issues for military personnel. 

The Justice Department didn’t respond to The Daily Signal’s inquiries for this report. Federal agencies frequently decline to comment on ongoing litigation. Publicly, however, the Justice Department said in an October 2022 court filing that releasing documents about its strategic plan to implement Biden’s order could cause “public confusion.” 

“To qualify for protection under this privilege, material must be inter- or intra-agency, and both pre-decisional and deliberative,” the Justice Department’s motion in the lawsuit says.

In a March 3 speech, Attorney General Merrick Garland said voter ID and other election reforms were “discriminatory, burdensome and unnecessary,” and that the Justice Department would “fight back” against such measures. 

Numerous House and Senate Republicans have sought information about the documents related to Biden’s order telling government agencies to register voters. Critics have said the order could cause federal employees to engage in illegal activity by participating in elective politics. They point to potential violation of the Hatch Act, a law prohibiting partisan political activity using government time or resources, and the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits executive branch agencies from spending money for purposes not designated by Congress.

The Department of Education released a “toolkit” to expand voting among college students and to provide information about voting for students in grades K-12.

Also under Biden’s initiative, the Department of Homeland Security registers new voters during naturalization ceremonies. It’s not clear what else the DHS–which also is charged with stopping illegal immigration–has done to implement Biden’s executive order. 

As The Daily Signal previously reported, the Biden administration carved out paid administrative leave to encourage federal bureaucrats—seen as a loyal Democrat constituency—to volunteer as poll workers during elections. The Daily Signal also reported that federal agencies are working to carry out Biden’s order on voting with Demos and other liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union

In 2021, the White House announced that the Justice Department would focus on the Bureau of Prisons to “provide information about voting to individuals in federal custody, facilitate voting by those who remain eligible to do so while in federal custody, and educate individuals before reentry about voting rules and voting rights in their states.” 

The Biden administration has made little other information available, however. 

Nightmare Scenario: How a Trump Trial Could Now Run Up to (or Through) the 2024 Election


By: Jonathan Turley | March 11, 2024

Below is my column in the Hill on the real possibility of a federal trial of former president Donald Trump just before or even through the 2024 election. The claim that this schedule is the result of treating Trump like other criminal defendants is increasingly dubious given statements of courts and the Special Counsel.

Here is the column:

“This trial will not yield to the election cycle.” Those words of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan last year made clear that she will not consider that Donald Trump will likely be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee in setting the schedule for his federal trial in Washington, D.C.

Most recently, in the federal prosecution in Florida, Special Counsel Jack Smith declared that he will not consider himself bound by the Justice Department’s longstanding policy of not bringing charges or holding trials of candidates close to an election.

With the Supreme Court reviewing the immunity question (and a decision not expected until June), a nightmare scenario is unfolding in which Trump could be tried not just before the general election, but actually through November’s election.

Chutkan has insisted that her refusal to consider Trump’s candidacy is simply denying special treatment to the former president. But there is nothing typical about how she and others have handled the case. The fact that Chutkan was pushing for a March trial date shows just how extraordinary her handling has been.

In the D.C. courts, with thousands of stacked up cases, that would be a rocket docket for a complex case of this kind. There are roughly 770,000 pending cases in roughly 100 district courts around the country. The backlog of pending criminal cases in the federal court system increased by more than a quarter in the last five years. Even when defendants plead guilty, criminal cases average 10 months. If a trial is needed, it runs on average to two years, absent serious complications over classified or privileged material. Smith indicted Trump less than a year ago.

At every juncture, Smith has tried to expedite and spur the case along. This has included an attempt to cut off standard appellate options for Trump. It seems as if the entire point is to try Trump before the election. Smith has offered no reason, other than that he wants voters to consider the outcome of the trial. It is a rare acknowledgement of a desire for a trial to become a factor in an election.

Judge Chutkan has shown the same determination. The judge was criticized for comments she made before any charges were brought that strongly suggested she thought Trump should be criminally charged. Chutkan told one defendant that he showed “blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” In another case, Chutkan told the defendant that it was unfair that he might go to prison but “the architects of that horrific event will likely never be charged.”

When asked to recuse herself, Chutkan denied the clear implication of her own words. She insisted that she has not expressly stated that “’President Trump should be prosecuted’ and imprisoned… And the defense does not cite any instance of the court ever uttering those words or anything similar.”

Of course, neither the court nor the prosecutors seem willing to apply a similarly deferential view of the meaning of Trump’s words within the context of the case. There, the implications are sufficient for that “one person” described earlier by the court.

Chutkan is now reportedly telling parties in other cases that she will be out of the country in August, and that defendants will have to delay any proceedings in light of her plans…unless she can try Trump. She told lawyers that she will stick with her schedule unless “I’m in trial in another matter that has not yet returned to my calendar.”

Given the apparent motivation of the trial court to try Trump before the election, the only other source of restraint would be the Justice Department itself. Smith, however, has insisted that he will show no such restraint, even if he tries Trump through the election.

In his filings in Florida, Smith insisted that the oft-cited Justice Department policy to avoid such proceedings within 60 days of an election would not be applied in Trump’s case. He insisted that, since everyone knows about the allegations, there would be no harm or foul in holding him for trial for the weeks before the election as his opponent, President Biden, is free to traverse the country campaigning.

Smith’s position was applauded by commentators who had previously invoked the rule to oppose charges that might have helped Trump before prior elections. Take Andrew Weissmann, who served as the controversial top aide to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Now an MSNBC legal analyst, Weissmann assured viewers that there was no problem trying Trump just before the election because this is just “an internal rule. It is not a law.”

He then added “Second, the rule does not apply! For anyone who has been at the Justice Department, this is such a red herring.” He insisted this is only meant to avoid some “covert cases” being tried “because you don’t want to influence the election when that person — the candidate — doesn’t have an opportunity to get to trial.”

However, when the issue was the possibility of Special Counsel John Durham charging figures in the Russia investigation before the 2020 election, Weissmann and Professor Ryan Goodman wrote a column not only invoking the rule but encouraging prosecutors to refuse to assist Durham.

I have previously written about the ambiguity of this rule and the selectivity of its applications. However, Weissmann and Goodman were adamant that such prosecutions would be dangerous. Even though no actual election candidate would have been charged, they invoked this Justice Department “norm” and declared, “The Justice Department should not take action that could distort an election and influence the electorate. If someone is charged immediately before an election, for instance, that person has no time to offer a defense to counter the charges. The closer the election, the greater the risk that the department is impermissibly acting based on political considerations, which is always prohibited.”

It is certainly true that these charges have been known for a while, but Trump may not have an ability to present a complete defense before the election. It is also clear that he will have to choose between campaigning for office and defending his liberty.

Moreover, this is the leading candidate for the presidency, and the opponent to the current incumbent. A 2023 poll found that a 47 percent plurality of Americans already believe the charges are politically motivated. That appearance will only worsen as the election approaches, a recognition that should force a modicum of restraint upon both the court and the prosecution. Finally, Smith is referencing the election as the reason to expedite the trial precisely because it may have an influence on voters.

The Trump trials are troubling precisely because they are being handled differently because of who the defendant is. No one can seriously suggest that Judge Chutkan would be moving other cases or canceling trips in order to shoehorn them into the calendar this year, if it were not for the election and the name of the defendant. Such cases are, after all, notorious for taking years to work out complicated pre-trial matters.

Most citizens already see that reality. State prosecutors in New York and Georgia waited for years to charge Trump, then pushed for expedited schedules in order to try him before the election.

That brings us back to Judge Chutkan’s pledge to “not yield to the election cycle.” Yet the expedited effort of the court seems clearly motivated by the election cycle. She and Smith are depending on the election cycle as they struggle to pull Trump into court at the height of a presidential campaign. It is a schedule conceived for the “one person” described by Chutkan in the earlier cases. As the calendar continues to shrink, claims of blind justice increasingly look like the blind pursuit of a specific person.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

“Patently False”: Special Counsel Files Blistering Reply to Hunter Biden Motion to Dismiss


Jonathan Turley | March 10, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/10/patently-false-special-counsel-files-blistering-reply-to-hunter-biden-motion-to-dismiss/

Special Counsel David Weiss has filed a blistering opposition to the motion to dismiss by Hunter Biden in California that cites his own book and conflicting statements as creating “nothing more than a house of cards.” The filing (below) shows how Hunter’s claims (repeated by many in the media) collapse under even cursory review in court.

Weiss’s filing bulldozes through arguments of selective prosecution and political influence in the case. He specifically notes that Biden repeatedly makes statements without any proof or support in his filings.

The filing begins by outright accusing Hunter Biden and his counsel of lying to the court about what occurred after the earlier plea agreement fell apart in court after the judge in Delaware asked about a sweeping immunity clause in paragraph 14. Notably, Weiss said that it was Hunter Biden’s legal team that inexplicably shut down negotiations by playing hardball in seeking to preserve the original agreement:

“The government proposed changes to the agreements that addressed only the issues identified during the hearing. Exh. 3. The defendant rejected these counterproposals on August 7, 2023. Id. Instead, the defendant began insisting that the proposed Diversion Agreement had bound both parties, even though it had not been approved by the Chief U.S. Probation Officer, a condition precedent to formation that would have brought it into effect. Moreover, by taking this position, he chose to shut down any further negotiations that could address the issues raised at the hearing.”

It then accuses Biden and his counsel as outright lying to the court:

“In his motion, in multiple places, the defendant falsely states that DOJ ‘inexplicably demanded Mr. Biden plead guilty to felonies with jail time.’ He cites nothing in support of his false claims, which is a consistent theme across his motions. The government attaches as Exhibit 3 a redacted letter from the defendant’s counsel which confirms the defendant understood that the government had proposed changes to only those paragraphs that were at issue during the hearing, not paragraphs regarding the charges the defendant must plead to or any “jail time” the defendant must serve. As shown in Exhibit 3, the government proposed changes to Paragraphs 14, 15 and 17 of the Diversion Agreement, and Paragraph 5(b) of the Plea Agreement. The government proposed no changes to Paragraph 1 of the Plea Agreement, which required the defendant to plead guilty to two misdemeanors. Nor did the government propose any changes to Paragraph 6 of the Plea Agreement, in which the United States had agreed to recommend a sentence of probation. The defendant rejected these counterproposals and refused further negotiations…His newly invented claim in his motion that the government “inexplicably demanded Mr. Biden plead guilty to felonies with jail time” is patently false, unsupported by evidence, and belied by his own letter and representations in his filings in the Delaware case.”

The rest of the filing is equally devastating.

Weiss notes that Biden repeatedly misrepresents facts or claims authority that does not exist. He notes that Biden does not cite any cases of similarly situated individuals who were not prosecuted. For example, it notes:

“The only attempt the defendant makes to link animus directly to prosecutors is his claim that “reports indicate Mr. Weiss himself admitted [the charges] would not have been brought against the average American.” Motion at 13. However, his citation does not include a reference to reports (plural), rather it includes a single New York Times citation, which includes a denial immediately after the quoted excerpt: “A senior law enforcement official forcefully denied the account.” An anonymous account that is “forcefully denied” is not evidence that can satisfy the defendant’s burden of producing “clear evidence” of discriminatory intent and animus by prosecutors.”

In rejecting the two cases that he references, Weiss takes a swipe at Hunter’s book. When he published the book, some of us noted that he was making statements against his own interest in possible prosecutions. Weiss just made that a reality:

“The defendant compares himself to only two individuals: Robert Shaughnessy and Roger Stone, both of whom resolved their tax cases civilly for failing to pay taxes. Shaughnessy failed to file and pay his taxes, but he was not alleged to have committed tax evasion. By contrast, the defendant chose to file false returns years later, failed to pay when those returns were filed, and lied to his accountants repeatedly, claiming personal expenses as business expenses. Stone failed to pay his taxes but did timely file his returns, unlike the defendant. Neither Shaughnessy nor Stone illegally purchased a firearm and lied on background check paperwork. And neither of them wrote a memoir in which they made countless statements proving their crimes and drawing further attention to their criminal conduct. These two individuals are not suitable comparators, and since the defendant fails to identify anyone else, his claim fails.”

The brief even takes a shot at the use of public statements by former Attorney General Eric Holder to prove selective prosecution, noting that Holder seems hopelessly conflicted in his own claim of selective prosecution:

“The defendant cites media commentary by former Attorney General Eric Holder, who acknowledged that the defendant is not similarly situated to other individuals: ‘This isn’t some kind of ordinary run-of-the-mill tax case, [] this was an abuse of the tax system . . .’”

The filing annihilates the public claims of Hunter and his allies. It is the difference between making a case in the court of public opinion and making a case in an actual court of law.

Special Counsel Opposition

Tag Cloud