Sunday, May 5, 2024

New revelations in Florida documents trial put Trump on offense against 'deranged' special counsel   Story by Emma Colton • 4h Fox News

Former President Trump returns to Trump Tower, New York City, Monday, April 15, 2024. Trump was in Manhattan Criminal Court today for jury selection in the so-called "hush-money" case. Fox News© Probe-Media for Fox New Digital

Former President Trump is calling for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s arrest after the prosecutors handling the 45th president’s classified documents case admitted seized documents are no longer in their original order and sequence.

"Now, Deranged Jack has admitted in a filing in front of Judge Cannon to what I have been saying happened since the Illegal RAID on my home, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida – That he and his team committed blatant Evidence Tampering by mishandling the very Boxes they used as a pretext to bring this Fake Case," Trump posted to Truth Social on Friday. "These deeply Illegal actions by the Politicized ‘Persecutors’ mandate that this whole Witch Hunt be DROPPED IMMEDIATELY. END THE ‘BOXES HOAXES.’ MAGA2024!"

"ARREST DERANGED JACK SMITH. HE IS A CRIMINAL!" Trump added in a follow-up post.

Prosecutors admitted in a court filing on Friday that "there are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans." The prosecutors had previously told the court that the documents were "in their original, intact form as seized."

"The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court," a footnote in the filing reads.

READ ON

IN ADDITION....This trial should never been started, the "equal justice under the law" did not prevail here. When they refused to charge Biden for practically the SAME CRIME (because of his age and mental incapacity that he wouldn't remember doing the crimeand the people would only see Biden as an aged, feeble, mentally challenged old man. Just remember this...HIS MIND WAS FUNTIONAL WHEN HE STOLE THOSE DOCUMENTS! But unlike Trump, Biden had no right to even read those top secret documents. He STOLE them and left them in the open in various places.


Where is the crime here?: Tomi Lahren  FOX News 8 hrs ago

OutKick host Tomi Lahren and Fox News senior political analyst Juan Williams join ‘MediaBuzz’ to discuss former Trump aide Hope Hicks’ testimony in NY v. Trump.



Was Jack Smith's appointment unconstitutional? He has no more authority than Taylor Swift, amicus brief argues  BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS DECEMBER 21, 2023,

Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel has been a subject of constitutional debate. According to an amicus brief signed by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese and two law professors, Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional1The argument centers around the process of appointing a special counsel, which typically involves the President or the Attorney General appointing an individual who is then confirmed by the Senate2. Here are the key points from the brief:

Improper Appointment: Attorney General Merrick Garland allegedly “exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority” when he appointed Smith in November 2022. Smith was not nominated by President Joe Biden or confirmed by the U.S. Senate, which raises concerns about the legitimacy of his appointment.

Null and Void Actions: Because Smith’s appointment was deemed unconstitutional, every action he has taken since his appointment is now considered null and void. This includes any legal proceedings related to immunity claims by former President Donald Trump1.

Nationwide Jurisdiction: Despite lacking proper appointment procedures, Smith has nationwide jurisdiction, making him more powerful than any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys. Federal law allows the attorney general to appoint attorneys to assist U.S. attorneys, but not to replace them1.

Appointments Clause: The appointments clause in the Constitution requires that all federal offices “not otherwise provided for” be established by law. However, there is no statute establishing the Office of Special Counsel within the U.S. Department of Justice, nor is there a statute allowing the attorney general to appoint an inferior officer with the powers given to Smith. Additionally, inferior officers must be controlled by a superior officer, which does not apply to Smith under DOJ regulations1.

In summary, the constitutional validity of Jack Smith’s appointment remains a contentious issue, and legal challenges continue to question the legitimacy of his role as special counsel


Wednesday, May 1, 2024

Biden Sparks Outrage with Tax Policy Targeting Benefits for 'White' People     Story by Georgia Mckoy • 9h   Savvy Dime 

The Demographic Impact of Tax Changes ©Avinash Kumar/Unsplash

Newsweek reports that the demographic most affected by the proposed changes in capital gains taxes are predominantly white, as stated by the administration.

Implementing this policy is part of a broader strategy aimed at reducing racial disparities in wealth, which have persisted despite some progress in areas like education and corporate diversity.
 
The Demographic Impact of Tax Changes©Avinash Kumar/Unsplash

Newsweek reports that the demographic most affected by the proposed changes in capital gains taxes are predominantly white, as stated by the administration.

Implementing this policy is part of a broader strategy aimed at reducing racial disparities in wealth, which have persisted despite some progress in areas like education and corporate diversity.
 
Combined Tax Burden Could Reach 59% ©Wikimedia Commons

Under the new proposal, some high-income earners could face a combined state and federal capital gains tax rate of up to 59%.

Including the new federal proposal along with existing state capital gains taxes, the policy would significantly increase the tax burden on wealthy investors.
 
Addressing the Racial Wealth Gap ©Clay Banks/Unsplash

The administration's budget suggests that increasing the capital gains tax rate could contribute to reducing the racial wealth gap.

Despite advancements in educational attainment and increased diversity in corporate leadership, substantial economic disparities remain between racial groups.
Criticism of the Tax Reform ©Wikimedia CommonsCritics argue that the tax reform serves a political rather than practical purpose.
"It's a complete mess, and it produces anything but equality," Michael Seifert, CEO of digital marketplace PublicSquare, expressed his concerns to The National Desk about the reform's effectiveness in achieving its intended goals.

Addressing the Racial Wealth Gap ©Clay Banks/Unsplash

The administration's budget suggests that increasing the capital gains tax rate could contribute to reducing the racial wealth gap.

Despite advancements in educational attainment and increased diversity in corporate leadership, substantial economic disparities remain between racial groups.

Criticism of the Tax Reform ©Wikimedia Commons

Critics argue that the tax reform serves a political rather than practical purpose.

"It's a complete mess, and it produces anything but equality," Michael Seifert, CEO of digital marketplace PublicSquare, expressed his concerns to The National Desk about the reform's effectiveness in achieving its intended goals.
 
Broader Economic Concerns ©Towfiqu barbhuiya/Unsplash

Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor at the University of Tennessee at Martin, voiced concerns to Newsweek about the implications of taxing unrealized gains.

He said, "The potential tax on unrealized long term capital gains is limited to taxpayers with over $100 million in assets... the idea of taxing the value of asset that has yet to be sold is difficult to set."
 
The Debate Over Wealth Taxation ©Wikimedia Commons

As the Biden administration's budget undergoes scrutiny, it sparks a debate about the effectiveness of taxing the wealthiest Americans more heavily.

The discussion centers on whether such tax policies can equitably redistribute wealth and address systemic economic disparities.

Potential Impact on Investment ©Amy Hirschi/Unsplash

Michael Ryan, a finance expert, told Newsweek that doubling the capital gains rate might deter investment and entrepreneurship, which are vital for economic growth.

He noted that historically, lower capital gains taxes have encouraged his clients to invest more in their businesses

Structural Problems Remain Unaddressed ©Kenny Eliason/Unsplash

Ryan further argued that the proposed tax changes do not address the fundamental systemic issues that contribute to racial wealth disparities.

He highlighted issues such as unequal access to quality education and career opportunities.

Criticism from Financial Experts ©Wikimedia Commons

The approach of taxing unrealized gains has been particularly controversial.

Charles Payne, a Fox Business journalist, criticized the policy on X, formerly Twitter, stating, "Taxing unrealized 'gains' from white folks doesn't make Black folks more prosperous—it's just a bogus and un-American excuse for confiscation."

Focus on Wealth Inequality ©Wikimedia Commons

The proposed tax increase is intended to impact those benefiting most from lower capital gains rates, who are overwhelmingly white families.

Such measures are part of the administration's strategy to financially address demographic imbalances that have long existed within the U.S. economic system.

Seeking Comprehensive Solutions ©Shane Rounce/Unsplash

The necessity of finding effective measures to close the racial wealth gap is widely recognized.

"Narrowing the racial wealth divide is a noble cause," Ryan acknowledges, stressing the need for targeted, multifaceted solutions beyond just taxing the investments of millionaires and billionaires.


Tuesday, April 30, 2024

While I don't think the President should be allowed COMPLETE immunity, I don't think he should be allowed to endure the ridiculous charges these DEMOCRAT lawyers and district attorneys have brought against President Donald Trump! And they ALL do seem to be DEMOCRAT which brings to mind "Political Weaponry". We all know that's TRUE!

Prove me wrong!!!

'Surprising' and 'disturbing': Legal experts react to SCOTUS on Trump    immunity case  11hrs ago ABC News

When Donald Trump began to claim presidential immunity from criminal prosecution related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, many legal analysts ABC News spoke with considered it a weak argument.

But last week, in nearly three hours of oral arguments, several Supreme Court justices seemed open to some limited protection for former presidents from criminal liability for official acts they undertook while in the White House.

It was a shocking turn of events, according to some veteran court observers.

"It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court," Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional expert at the University of North Carolina, told ABC News. "I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable."

"That's exactly the part that I think most of the American public is going to find fairly incredulous," said David Schultz, a professor at the University of Minnesota and national expert in constitutional law. "The idea of saying that the president of the United States is above the law compared to the rest of us."

While the justices seemed poised to reject Trump's more sweeping claim of "absolute" immunity, how they attempt to devise what official acts are and are not exempt from criminal prosecution will set a new standard for presidential power.

"That is a whole new territory for the court that we've never seen before," Schultz said, "and will make major new law in the United States."



Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Federal Judge Hands Down 2nd Amendment Victory     Story by Athena Hallet • 10h  History Enhanced

©Source: Adobe Stock

A federal district judge in the United States has rejected a ban on pistol braces, ruling that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its jurisdiction. This ruling impacts the entire ATF, and possibly millions of gun owners.

The judge determined that the plaintiff's case will most likely win, ,

Meaning that the ATF’s rule will most likely be invalidated. 

Referencing the Mock v. Garland case, Kacsmaryk said, 

"as explained in Garland, ‘[t]he controlling law of this case is that the Government Defendants’ promulgation of the Final Rule ‘fails the logical-outgrowth test and violates the APA’ and ‘therefore must be set aside as unlawful’ under the APA.'”

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk wrote.

“The Court is certainly sympathetic to ATF’s concerns over public safety in the wake of tragic mass shootings. The Rule 'embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society,'"

The order read,

"Additionally, ATF admits the 10-year cost of the Rule is over one billion dollars ... and because of the Rule, certain manufacturers that obtain most of their sales from the stabilizing braces risk having to close their doors for good," 

Gun rights organizations have condemned the ATF for the rule, 

Saying it is unconstitutional and an overreach of executive authority.

Pro Second Amendment groups welcomed the ruling. 

Under the ATF rule, owners of braces have to take one of five steps, which includes turning in the entire firearm with the brace attached to the agency.

The Biden-Harris Administration has underscored the importance of storing guns safely as a crucial step reducing gun related deaths, specifically among children and adolescents. 

Through the promotion of the safe gun storage law and allocating unprecedented funding through initiatives like the American Rescue Plan and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the administration seeks to mitigate accidental shootings, youths ability to access firearms, and the association of guns that are secured which can lead to schools shooting and suicides. 

President Joe Biden has made gun control a key priority of his administration, demonstrating his dedication to mitigating gun violence and coming up with a plan to address safety measures. 

The Biden-Harris Administration has revealed a multifaceted strategy that is meant to promote safe storage of guns,preventing illegal firearm purchases, and advocating for legislative reforms to mitigate gun violence. 

President Biden has emphasized the urgency of legislative reforms to enforce gun control measures, 

urging Congress to pass universal background checks, ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, end the gun industry's immunity from liability, and enact a national red flag law. 

The administration's advocacy for thorough background checks,

Restrictive measures on high-risk firearm purchase falls in line with the bigger agenda to reduce gun violence and create better public safety.

The administration's collaboration with both states and local leaders on safe storage laws highlights its dedication to nurturing more accountability,

And promoting safer firearm practices on both federal and local levels.  

The administration's collaboration with both states and local leaders on safe storage laws highlights its dedication to nurturing more accountability,

And promoting safer firearm practices on both federal and local levels.   

The initiatives that the administration has taken has fueled polarized assessments, 

Supporters praise the endeavors to address gun violence, while those in opposition express concerns regarding balance between public safety and individual liberties.  

President Biden's gun control agenda has faced criticism and doubt from various sectors, with opponents expressing concerns about the potential impact of politically divisive measures on the right to keep and bear arms. 

The administration's push to ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and pushing for more strict regulations on the sales of guns ignited debates about constitutional rights, the efficacy of proposed measures, and the potential implications for responsible gun ownership. 


Thursday, April 18, 2024

 When you're face to face is NOT the time to find out your adversary is not a responsible gun owner

15 Alarming Signs You're Dealing With an Irresponsible Gun Owner  Story by Body Cams+ • 1d

Navigating the realm of gun ownership demands a profound sense of responsibility and an unwavering commitment to safety. Yet, the landscape is marred by the actions of individuals who, through negligence or outright disregard, pose a significant risk to themselves and those around them. From the cavalier mishandling of firearms to a blatant ignorance of legal requirements, these behaviors not only undermine the principles of responsible gun ownership but also jeopardize the well-being of communities.

Highlighting the traits of an irresponsible gun owner not only serves as a cautionary tale but underscores the critical importance of education, awareness, and strict adherence to safety protocols in preserving the integrity of gun ownership.
nnn


Iran is about to start a nuclear world war – and the West is determined to lose   by Allister Heath • 22hThe Telegraph

US President Joe Biden speaks to members of the media before boarding Air Force One© Provided by The Telegraph

The conventional wisdom is wrong. We need rational, controlled escalation from the Western powers in the face of Iranian aggression, not more of the sickening appeasement, delusion and cowardice of the past few days. The regime needs to be punished for its monstrous war-mongering, not mollified and placated by a bunch of Western ignoramuses who confuse weakness for virtue.

If Joe Biden were a serious president, he would announce that the mullahs in Tehran have crossed a red line, that they are an existential menace to civilised nations. He would declare that enough is enough, that no country can shoot hundreds of drones and missiles at one of its neighbours with impunity, that no government can go on funding terrorism, rape, torture and murder on an industrial scale. He would understand the need to deter other rogue states through a show of strength

He would state that the Iranian regime must be treated like the global pariah that it has become, that all of its proxies must be destroyed, and that, above all, it will never be allowed to get anywhere near nuclear weapons. He would put together a coalition, including as many of Iran’s Arab neighbours as possible. He would impose extreme sanctions. He would allow Israel to finish off Hamas. He would help hit Hezbollah.

Tuesday, April 16, 2024

STUDY: At Least 90% of TV News Fails to Call Trump Prosecutors ‘Democrats’   Rich Noyes  April 15th, 2024



Barring a last-minute hiccup, today a Democratic prosecutor — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — will begin his unprecedented criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s certain presidential nominee in November’s general election.

Despite the obvious political implications of such a prosecution, a new study of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage shows at least 90% of their coverage failed to inform viewers that Bragg and the other elected Democrats going after Trump are “Democrats.” It’s as if the networks prefer to disingenuously portray the indictments and civil lawsuits as the work of nonpartisan career prosecutors, rather than as partisan attempts to use the court system to hobble the electoral prospects of the country’s top Republican.

For this study, our analysts reviewed all broadcast evening news coverage from January 1, 2023 through April 10, 2024. Here’s a rundown of how the networks are failing to adequately disclose the partisanship of the three elected Democrats prosecuting Trump: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg; Fulton County (Georgia) District Attorney Fani Willis; and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

■ Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg: Bragg attained his current post after he ran and won as a Democrat in the November 2021 general election. During his campaign, Bragg all but promised to use his office to pursue the former President — to hold him “accountable,” as Bragg not-so-subtly put it as he vied with other Democrats for the coveted nomination

Add it all up, and the Big Three only labeled Bragg as a Democrat 17 times out of 163 stories, which means Bragg’s partisanship was omitted from nearly 90% of evening news stories about his election-season indictments of the former President.

■ New York Attorney General Letitia James: Twice elected as an anti-Trump Democrat (in 2018 and 2022),

“There are a number of important investigations and cases that are underway, and I intend to finish the job,” James explained. That same day, she stepped up her investigation of the Trump businesses that led to the unprecedented $355 million civil judgment against the former President, now being appealed

The final tally: As of April 10, the Big Three have aired 105 stories about the civil case against Trump, but only nine mentioned that the official who brought the charges, Letitia James, is a partisan Democrat — leaving this crucial fact out of 93% of network stories.

■ Fulton County (Georgia) District Attorney Fani Willis: As with Bragg and James, Willis’s partisanship is not in dispute. She ran and won as a Democrat in 2020, and she is running for re-election this fall as a Democrat. This spring, during a misconduct hearing into her affair with a lead prosecutor, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported “prominent Democrats” in Georgia were “rallying around” Willis, hoping to keep her from being removed from the Trump case.

Add it all up, and out of 149 evening news stories about the Georgia election case against Trump, a scant five percent revealed that Willis was a Democrat, vs. 95% that kept viewers in the dark.

READ MORE


RFK Got It Right  By Kenin M. Spivak April 10, 2024

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. visits “The Faulkner Focus”at Fox News Channel Studios on June 02, 2023 in New York City. (Photo by Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images)

(Views expressed by guest commentators may not reflect the views of OAN or its affiliates.)

When presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told CNN last week that he sees President Joe Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Donald Trump, mainstream media, academics, and elected Democrats exploded in vitriol.

Speaking on CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront, Kennedy said, “I can make the argument that President Biden is the much worse threat to democracy, and the reason for that is President Biden is… the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent.” Kennedy added: “The greatest threat to democracy is not somebody who questions election returns but a President of the United States who will use the power of his office to force the social media companies… to open a portal and give access to that portal to the FBI, CIA, the IRS, the NIH, to censor his political critics.”



Iran gets help from Russia..NOW WHAT ?

Iran Threatens Second Attack On Israel With Unprecedented Weapons, Amid Russian Military Aid  OAN’s James Meyers Tuesday, April 16, 2024

TEHRAN, IRAN - APRIL 17: An Iranian surface to surface Ghasedak missile is driven past portraits of Iran's late founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali khamenei (R), during the annual army day military parade on April 17, 2008 in Tehran, Iran. Ahmadinejad proclaimed today the country's army was a powerful deterrent to all enemies saying "No major power is able to jeopardize the Iranian nation's security and interests due to the Iranian people's power today, Iran's army, the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij would respond strongly to even the minimum aggression," (Photo by Majid/Getty Images)
(Photo by Majid/Getty Images)

Multiple surfacing reports claim that Iran is now receiving brand-new weaponry from Russia, including anti-aircraft launchers and fighter jets.

Abolfazl Amouei, a spokesperson for the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Committee, reportedly told Al-Mayadeen News that the Islamic Republic “will confront any Israeli aggression and respond to it.”

“We are ready to use weapons that we have not used before,” the official told Al-Mayadeen News, according to the Economic Times.

“We have plans for all scenarios, and we call on the Zionists to act rationally.”

Additionally, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi also warned that if Israel takes even the “slightest action,” it will face “a severe, extensive and painful response.”

“The blind support of some Western countries to the Zionist regime is the cause of tension in the region,” he claimed, according to the Daily Express.

“We will respond in a massive, broad and painful manner to the slightest action targeting Iranian interests.”

Iran has several nuclear research sites, two uranium mines, a research reactor, uranium processing facilities, and three uranium enrichment plants.

In November 2023, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran’s uranium stockpile was more than 20 times larger than the limit agreed upon under the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal. In December of the same year, the United Nations warned that Iran had enriched uranium up to 60% purity, which is close to weapons-grade, and they also said that the country has “enough uranium to build three atomic bombs.”

Russia has offered continued support to Iran with air defense technology and advanced fighter jets, as well as support for spy satellites. Additionally, Russia could help rebuild Iran’s air force, which is currently made up of rebuilt Soviet and U.S. jets from before 1979.

Officials in Iran have been pushing for Russia’s anti-aircraft launchers, which according to military experts, are capable of destroying stealth fighter jets that the U.S. and Israel possess.

Currently, Iran has been supporting Russia against Ukraine by supplying thousands of drones and missiles to Moscow to support its war efforts. Russia agreed last year to buy close to $2 billion worth of military equipment.

Sunday, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin that the Jewish state has “no choice” but to retaliate against Tehran after they launched hundreds of missiles and drones against Israel on Saturday.

However, according to the Jerusalem Post, none of the drones or cruise missiles made it through the Iron Dome.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts


 I don't think Trump can get a FAIR trial ANYWHERE in the U.S.

Can Trump Receive A Fair Trial In NY Criminal Trial?  OAN’s Stella Escobedo Monday, April 15, 2024 

President Donald Trump’s criminal trial gets underway in Mahattan, New York. Trump is charged with allegedly falsifying business records related to adult film star Stormy Daniels. One America’s Stella Escobedo spoke to criminal defense attorney David Gelman about the trial.

WATCH VID


 



Sunday, April 14, 2024

The FEDS need to quit trying to regulate GUNS!!Remember how well obama did in that dept with eric holders help,,,,,
A New Gun Regulation in the US is Set to Take Effect   Story by Rashford Carpenter • 14h The Artist

Gun Violence (Credits: Amnesty International)© Provided by The Artistree

The Biden administration is set to implement a new rule requiring thousands of firearms dealers in the United States to conduct background checks on buyers at gun shows and other locations outside traditional stores.

This move aims to close a loophole that has allowed unlicensed dealers to sell tens of thousands of guns annually without performing background checks, potentially enabling prohibited individuals to obtain firearms. Gun rights groups are expected to challenge the rule in court.

President Joe Biden emphasized the importance of this rule in preventing guns from falling into the hands of domestic abusers and felons, urging Congress to pass universal background check legislation.

The rule mandates that sellers primarily engaged in firearm sales for profit must be federally licensed and conduct background checks, regardless of where they sell firearms.

The administration’s efforts to curb gun violence also include creating the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention and calling for a ban on assault weapons.



Friday, April 12, 2024

An attack by them??

FBI concerned over possible terrorist attack in US  Apr 11, 2024 Reuters


FBI Director Christopher Wray expressed concerns about a potential organized attack in the US, citing the recent Russian concert hall massacre and the Israel-Hamas war, as he pressed lawmakers to renew a US surveillance program set to expire this month.


Bragg’s absurd case against Trump finally gets its undeserved day in court  Opinion by Gregg Jarrett • 10h Fox News

Former President Donald Trump, left, squares off against progressive Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg starting April 15. Photographer: Mary Altaffer/AP/Bloomberg via Getty Images Getty Images© Getty Images

Absent an eleventh-hour reprieve from a higher court, Donald Trump will become the first U.S. president to face a criminal trial when it commences on Monday in New York.  

Let the circus begin.  

The ringmaster of the Big Top clown show is Alvin Bragg, the progressive Manhattan district attorney who campaigned — unethically — on the promise to bring down Trump. Once in office, Bragg inflated a time-barred and nominal misdemeanor into a multitude of dubious felonies by mangling evidence and contorting the law.  

With a wave of his showman’s cane, Bragg transformed a singular transaction into 34 separate charges in what’s known as "count stacking" that no good prosecutor would ever do. It’s a transparent window into an otherwise opaque case.  

The gravamen of the indictment is that in 2016 Trump used his lawyer to pay money to Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. Stormy Daniels) in exchange for her silence about a purported affair that occurred a decade earlier, that he incorrectly recorded the payments in business records, and that all of it violated election laws, even though it did not.

Bragg surely knows his case is specious, at best. But it doesn’t matter. He’s counting on the sympathies of a liberal trial judge, Juan Merchan, and the venom of a jury pool destined to be dominated by Trump-hating New Yorkers. The once-respected standard of an "impartial jury" is being treated as a mere inconvenience instead of a constitutional right.

It is self-evident to many that the charges against the former president would be brought against no one else not named Trump. The fact that he is the leading candidate for president in the upcoming election is the only reason he is being persecuted under the guise of prosecution.

READ ON Plus Videos


 



Wednesday, April 10, 2024

 


 RFK Jr.: Border barriers were dismantled over pettiness   Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., says the United States should close the border on 'The Story.'

WATCH VIDEO


Of course the Wash. Post would put the Confederate flag up there. These protesters were not affiliated with the southern states. While a few carried this flag, I take offense to the linking of the protest to the south. And it was a protest, not a riot...Want to see a riot, look up ANTIFA & BLM !

Some Jan. 6 rioters win early release, even before key Supreme Court ruling     Story by Spencer Hsu • 19h The Washington Post

Some Jan. 6 rioters win early release, even before key Supreme Court ruling© Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Federal judges have begun ordering the early release pending appeal of Jan. 6 defendants who challenged their sentences even though the Supreme Court is a week away from hearing arguments on whether a key charge brought against them is legally sound.

A Delaware man who carried a Confederate flag into the Capitol will be let go one year into his three-year term. An Ohio man who overran police lines and became one of the first rioters to enter the Capitol will be set free six months into a 19-month term. And a man who entered the just-evacuated Senate chamber with a Trump flag as a cape was released after serving five months of a 14-month term.

If the Supreme Court ultimately determines the charge they faced was legitimate, they and others who are released early pending appeal could be ordered to return to prison — but that is not a certainty.

The truncated sentences are the latest complications in the prosecution of more than 350 Jan. 6 defendants under a federal statute that makes it a crime to obstruct or impede an official proceeding — in this case, Congress’s joint session to confirm Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory.

In December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a consolidated challenge by three men whose lawyers argue that the law — passed by Congress after the Enron scandal to criminalize document shredding by the collapsed company’s accounting firm — is limited to destroying evidence in governmental investigations. Fourteen of 15 trial judges upheld prosecutors’ use of the law to charge rioters who obstructed Congress’s election certification vote, but one judge in the U.S. District Court in Washington — Trump-appointed Judge Carl J. Nichols, who served in George W. Bush’s Justice Department — disagreed, ruling the law applied only to tampering or destruction of evidence such as records or documents.








Jacob Chansley, right with fur hat, and other rioters are confronted by U.S. Capitol Police officers outside the Senate Chamber on Jan. 6, 2021.© Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

If you watched the REAL video, you'd see the officers giving these people a GUIDED TOUR

READ MORE


Tuesday, April 9, 2024

 

5 Myths About the American Civil War People Need to Stop Believing Are True  Story by Todd Neikirk 


5 Myths About the American Civil War People Need to Stop Believing Are True ©Photo Credit: Thure de Thulstrup / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

Among the most discussed subjects in US history, the American Civil War remains in the public consciousness over 160 years after it broke out. While much of the discourse surrounding the conflict is grounded in fact, there are certain elements that've been embellished over time. Below are five misconceptions that need to be clarified.

In the years following the American Civil War, significant effort was made to portray Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee as a heroic figure of moral virtue. This narrative included assertions that he opposed slavery and didn't personally own slaves.

The historical evidence contradicts this portrayal. In 1857, Lee's wife inherited 189 enslaved people upon the death of her father, George Washington Parke Curtis, according to his will. The document stipulated the slaves be freed five years after Curtis' death. Records indicate Lee sold several of the individuals to settle debts and took legal action to prevent the emancipation of others.

Lee may have been described as paternalistic toward his slaves, but this doesn't alter the fundamental reality of his ownership of them. Civil War historian Eric Foner elaborates on this in an article published in The New York Times, saying, "He was not a pro-slavery ideologue. But I think equally important is that, unlike some White Southerners, he never spoke out against slavery.


READ ON


 New Lawsuit Brings the Gun Fight to New York That Could Allow SCOTUS To Force National Carry United Liberty  Story  by Tony Bonnani

In a bold move that could potentially shape the landscape of gun rights in America, Gun Owners of America (GOA) has taken the fight to New York with a groundbreaking lawsuit. This legal challenge has the potential to not only impact New York’s firearm regulations but could also pave the way for national reciprocity for concealed carry permits. Let’s explore the details of this significant development and its potential implications.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the contention that New York’s restrictive firearm laws unjustly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of non-residents. Currently, New York does not issue licenses to carry handguns to non-residents, nor does it recognize licenses issued by other states. This leaves individuals who travel to New York for business or leisure without the means to exercise their right to self-defense.

Sunday, April 7, 2024

Donald Trump Risks Another Defamation Trial With E. Jean Carroll Attack
Story by Khaleda Rahman Newsweek  • 8h • 3 min read
E. Jean Carroll departs a Manhattan federal court at the conclusion of her defamation suit against Donald Trump on January 26, 2024 in New York City. Donald Trump's latest attack on Carroll has sparked calls for her to sue him again.© Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Donald Trump's latest attack on columnist E. Jean Carroll have sparked calls for her to sue him for defamation for a third time.

The former president was ordered to pay Carroll $83.3 million in January for comments he made after she first publicly accused him of raping her in the dressing room of a luxury department store in New York City. That came after a separate jury in May last year awarded Carroll $5 million after finding Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation.

Last month, Trump posted a $92-million bond in connection with defamation cases brought by Carroll to ensure she will receive an award for his attack if it survives appeals.

The presumptive Republican has continued his attacks on Carroll and others involved in several cases against him despite his mounting legal bills. He is facing four criminal cases and also was given a $454-million civil fraud penalty after a New York state judge ruled that he had manipulated his net worth in financial statements for years.

In a post on Truth Social on Saturday, Trump launched a fresh attack on Carrol.

"How many Corrupt, Biased, Crooked [President] Joe Biden-'Protection Agency' New York Judges do I have to endure before somebody steps in?" Trump wrote in the post.

"I had New York Federal Judge, Lewis Kaplan, with a woman who I never knew, and had nothing to do with, until she sued me for 'defamation.' She did not know what day, month, or year the supposed 'incident' took place—She knew nothing."

Social media users responded to Trump's remarks by calling on Carroll to sue Trump for a third time.

"If Trump is going to keep defaming E. Jean Carroll, she should just keep suing him until everything that he owns becomes hers," author Majid M. Padellan wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "EVERYTHING."

If trump is going to keep defaming E. Jean Carroll, she should just keep suing him until everything that he owns becomes hers. EVERYTHING.
11:05 PM · Apr 6, 2024

Podcast host Keith Olbermann wrote that "Dementia J. Trump just defamed E. Jean Carroll again."And singer-songwriter Ricky Davila wrote that he hopes Carroll sues Trump "every single time he defames her just like he did again today."


A lawyer for Carroll has previously said that her client may sue Trump for defamation again.

"The statute of limitations for defamation in most jurisdictions is between one and three years," Roberta Kaplan said last month. "As we said after the last jury verdict, we continue to monitor every statement that Donald Trump makes about our client."

Kaplan and a lawyer representing Trump have been contacted for comment via email.

Legal experts previously told Newsweek that there is no limit to how many times Carroll can sue Trump for defamation.

Barbara McQuade, a former United States attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said a jury "has already found that Trump sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll. Every time he denies it, he exposes himself to another claim for defamation."