I can't keep QUIET about Biden anymore. Jul 28, 2023
Thursday, August 24, 2023
Monday, August 21, 2023
If you don't like MTG, then at least go to 10:20 and watch the last few seconds with Ted Cruz...UNBELIEVABLE!!!
MUST SEE: Greene ShOcks Crowd'
Debunking 'January' Story, Calls for
Garland's Impeachment iğneyle işler August 21, 2024
OK guys, what's our plan if they try to keep TRUMP'S name off the ballot ?????
'That is simply wrong': Ex-Trump lawyer
flips out over move to block former
president from ballot
Story by David Edwards •7h
During an appearance on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast, Dershowitz reacted to a column by his colleague, Laurence Tribe, claiming the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment barring insurrectionists also applies to Trump.
Tribe argued that any election officer could withhold Trump's name from the ballot because he inspired the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
"The Constitution simply doesn't permit this!" Dershowitz exclaimed. "For example, the governor of Texas could suddenly decide that Joe Biden is an insurrectionist because of his failure to control the borders. And he can disqualify Joe Biden. This will cause a constitutional crisis.
Thursday, August 17, 2023
The American Companies That Aren’t Actually American Anymore
Jul 17, 2023By Business
This article originally appeared on Investing.com. It has been republished here with permission.
Many brilliant companies – from Apple to Starbucks – have been founded in the United States, starting out as small ventures to become international leaders in their fields. However, the world of business isn’t always as straightforward as it looks. Regardless of how well-rooted a company’s American history is, it doesn’t mean that it will always belong to Uncle Sam.
In fact, many quintessentially American brands are no longer American-owned at all. From Ben and Jerry’s to IBM and Holiday Inn, overseas investors have played a big part in keeping these companies moving forward. Without them stepping in, some of them may have ceased to exist altogether.\\\\\
In fact, many quintessentially American brands are no longer American-owned at all. From Ben and Jerry’s to IBM and Holiday Inn, overseas investors have played a big part in keeping these companies moving forward. Without them stepping in, some of them may have ceased to exist altogether.\\\\\
Tuesday, August 15, 2023
I didn't realize Mr. Kennedys' speech was so bad, I put "closed captions" on so I knew what was being said.
Tucker Carlson Tonight 8/14/23 E.P 16 FULL END SHOW | Tucker Carlson Tonight August 14, 2023
GOP Rep. Issues Huge Warning to Dems After Latest Trump Indictment
House Republican Warns Democrats to
'Pray for Plan A' After Latest Trump
Indictment
After yet another Democratic DA brought an indictment against former President Donald Trump late Monday, Republicans came roaring back.
In the House and the Senate, Republican lawmakers went public with fury at the “weaponization” of the supposedly neutral criminal justice system and attacked Democrats and the Biden administration for blatant politics aimed at affecting the 2024 presidential election.
But it was Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins, the ex-cop who doesn’t back down, who summed up the situation best.
After yet another Democratic DA brought an indictment against former President Donald Trump late Monday, Republicans came roaring back.
In the House and the Senate, Republican lawmakers went public with fury at the “weaponization” of the supposedly neutral criminal justice system and attacked Democrats and the Biden administration for blatant politics aimed at affecting the 2024 presidential election.
But it was Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins, the ex-cop who doesn’t back down, who summed up the situation best.
“Electing Trump for the third time, putting him back in the White House, and saving our country is plan A,” Higgins said in a statement, according to Fox News. “I advise all Democrats … pray for plan A.”
The statement might have sounded threatening, but it’s true — if not in the way Higgins may have meant it. Because what he called “plan A” is exactly what Democrats should be praying for (assuming there are Democrats who still pray).
The lawfare Democrats have unleashed on Trump — with an indictment in New York, two at the federal level and now this Georgia monstrosity — is more than just a political tactic of a power-hungry party desperate to stop the most powerful figure in the country opposed to President Joe Biden.
It’s a full frontal assault on the democratic traditions — lowercase “d” — that have made the United States the most astoundingly successful nation by any measure in the history of the world.
In a short-sighted bid for power, knowing the evidence of corruption against Biden has reached the point where it’s undeniable, they’re abusing the American government to the breaking point — and every American should pray that it doesn’t succeed, very much including the Democratic voters who bear undeniable responsibility for their party’s behavior.
To paraphrase a famous, long-disputed quote liberals loved to use to mock the Vietnam War, Democrats are destroying the village to “save” it.
Other Republicans made it clear that the continuing legal assaults on Trump are breeding contempt for the legal system — not the former president.
“Justice should be blind, Justice should be blind, but Biden has weaponized government against his leading political opponent to interfere in the 2024 election,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy wrote on X, the platform formerly called Twitter.
“Now a radical DA in Georgia is following Biden’s lead by attacking President Trump and using it to fundraise her political career,” he said.
“Americans see through this desperate sham.”
August 15, 2023
In the House and the Senate, Republican lawmakers went public with fury at the “weaponization” of the supposedly neutral criminal justice system and attacked Democrats and the Biden administration for blatant politics aimed at affecting the 2024 presidential election.
But it was Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins, the ex-cop who doesn’t back down, who summed up the situation best.
After yet another Democratic DA brought an indictment against former President Donald Trump late Monday, Republicans came roaring back.
In the House and the Senate, Republican lawmakers went public with fury at the “weaponization” of the supposedly neutral criminal justice system and attacked Democrats and the Biden administration for blatant politics aimed at affecting the 2024 presidential election.
But it was Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins, the ex-cop who doesn’t back down, who summed up the situation best.
“Electing Trump for the third time, putting him back in the White House, and saving our country is plan A,” Higgins said in a statement, according to Fox News. “I advise all Democrats … pray for plan A.”
The statement might have sounded threatening, but it’s true — if not in the way Higgins may have meant it. Because what he called “plan A” is exactly what Democrats should be praying for (assuming there are Democrats who still pray).
The lawfare Democrats have unleashed on Trump — with an indictment in New York, two at the federal level and now this Georgia monstrosity — is more than just a political tactic of a power-hungry party desperate to stop the most powerful figure in the country opposed to President Joe Biden.
It’s a full frontal assault on the democratic traditions — lowercase “d” — that have made the United States the most astoundingly successful nation by any measure in the history of the world.
In a short-sighted bid for power, knowing the evidence of corruption against Biden has reached the point where it’s undeniable, they’re abusing the American government to the breaking point — and every American should pray that it doesn’t succeed, very much including the Democratic voters who bear undeniable responsibility for their party’s behavior.
To paraphrase a famous, long-disputed quote liberals loved to use to mock the Vietnam War, Democrats are destroying the village to “save” it.
Other Republicans made it clear that the continuing legal assaults on Trump are breeding contempt for the legal system — not the former president.
“Justice should be blind, Justice should be blind, but Biden has weaponized government against his leading political opponent to interfere in the 2024 election,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy wrote on X, the platform formerly called Twitter.
“Now a radical DA in Georgia is following Biden’s lead by attacking President Trump and using it to fundraise her political career,” he said.
“Americans see through this desperate sham.”
Justice should be blind, but Biden has weaponized government against his leading political opponent to interfere in the 2024 election.Now a radical DA in Georgia is following Biden’s lead by attacking President Trump and using it to fundraise her political career.Americans… Show more
Thursday, August 10, 2023
Watchdog group reveals Fauci and NIH
scientists personally collecting
royalty payments from taxpayer-funded
inventions Washington Examiner Story by Heather Hunter 21h
The transparency watchdog OpenTheBooks released more than 1,500 pages of records revealing that NIH leadership and thousands of scientists personally received royalty payments from companies licensing their inventions that were made with taxpayer money.
NIH leadership, including Fauci, claimed while testifying before Congress that they could not release the names of the companies paying the NIH third-party royalties. OpenTheBooks filed a lawsuit with Judicial Watch on its Freedom of Information Act request to get the documents released from the NIH.
The new report from the watchdog showed payments between September 2009 and October 2020. Several of the royalty payments were from companies that received federal contracts and grants, which could be considered a conflict of interest. The NIH allows scientists to receive no more than $150,000 annually from royalties.
In Senate hearings in 2022, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) grilled Fauci on his NIH royalty payments, and he declined to answer questions. The immunologist deflected by suggesting that he "didn't understand" what the senator was saying.
Newly released unredacted documents reveal third-party royalties paid to National Institutes of Health scientists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, before, during, and after the pandemic. These new findings raise more questions about Fauci's statements to lawmakers during congressional hearings.
The transparency watchdog OpenTheBooks released more than 1,500 pages of records revealing that NIH leadership and thousands of scientists personally received royalty payments from companies licensing their inventions that were made with taxpayer money.
NIH leadership, including Fauci, claimed while testifying before Congress that they could not release the names of the companies paying the NIH third-party royalties. OpenTheBooks filed a lawsuit with Judicial Watch on its Freedom of Information Act request to get the documents released from the NIH.
The new report from the watchdog showed payments between September 2009 and October 2020. Several of the royalty payments were from companies that received federal contracts and grants, which could be considered a conflict of interest. The NIH allows scientists to receive no more than $150,000 annually from royalties.
In Senate hearings in 2022, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) grilled Fauci on his NIH royalty payments, and he declined to answer questions. The immunologist deflected by suggesting that he "didn't understand" what the senator was saying.
Tuesday, August 8, 2023
Judge Asks Why Special Counsel Jack Smith Has Two Grand Juries Investigating Trump in Docs Case Story by Adam Klasfeld •2h
Judge Aileen Cannon questioning the “propriety” of a D.C. grand jury’s role in the classified documents case puzzled legal experts
A Donald Trump-appointed federal judge is pressing Special Counsel Jack Smith about the dual nature of his classified documents investigation into the former president.
The questions are buried toward the end of a two-page order that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued Monday — but they have potentially heavy implications, signaling that she could be taking an attack on the indictment seriously.“Among other topics as raised in the Motion, the response shall address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district,” Cannon wrote.
Smith began his probe in Washington, D.C., before charging it in the Southern District of Florida, but those lines haven’t always been brightly delineated. In a July hearing, an attorney for Trump’s personal valet and co-defendant Walt Nauta indicated that he may accuse the government of abusing the grand jury process.
‘Unorthodox’ logic
With Cannon bringing the issue to a head, some legal experts have questioned whether the controversy has any substance.
“I don't even understand the theory that there's some impropriety here,” remarked Adam Unikowsky, a partner at the white-shoe law firm Jenner & Block.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly state: “An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to another federal grand jury.”
Citing the rule, Unikowsky said of Cannon raising the issue: “I would call it unorthodox.”
Attorney David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor with extensive experience in the Southern District of Florida, also noted that the government said that both grand juries were investigating “obstructive activity.”
“The government is entitled to continue to investigate what they believe is criminal activity because there may be information that supports the return of a superseding indictment,” Weinstein told The Messenger.
That’s exactly what happened in the Southern District of Florida, where Smith’s office brought a new obstruction charge against Trump, Nauta, and a new co-defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, over an alleged plot to delete surveillance camera footage. Over in Washington, D.C., Trump also has been charged with “obstructive activity” — namely, obstructing an official proceeding and a related conspiracy count in connection with his attempt to thwart the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory.
Walt Nauta, valet to former U.S. President Donald Trump and a co-defendant in federal charges filed against Trump leaves the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building on July 6, 2023 in Miami, Florida. Alon Skuy/Getty Images© Provided by The Messenger
Former Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe was even more blunt.
“If Judge Cannon thinks raising silly questions about Smith’s use of a DC grand jury to uncover more facts related to Mar-a-Lago helps Trump by denying the Florida trial, she’s wrong,” Tribe tweeted.
‘An Open Docket’
Equally puzzling to some legal experts is that Judge Cannon made her inquiry inside an order denying the government’s motion to seal certain grand jury information.
Prosecutors wanted to privately share certain information about Woodward, who represents Nauta and at least seven people questioned in the documents case. At least three of these attorney-client relationships pose potential conflicts of interest, prosecutors say.
Smith’s office offered their proposed sealed filings to share grand jury material about those witnesses with the judge, but Cannon rejected that maneuver, finding that prosecutors did not prove their need for secrecy. Some legal experts found it appropriate that a federal judge would hold the government to an exacting standard before keeping any information from the public.
“Our court system operates on an open docket,” noted Weinstein, the former federal prosecutor.
Citing the unique circumstances of the government’s motion here, Unikowsky found the denial “weird.” He noted that prosecutors offered the information in order to help protect Nauta’s constitutional rights to conflict-free counsel.
“By denying the motion to seal, she's striking these filings from the docket, which means it's as if they were never filed, but the parties can't refer to them because they're not even on the docket anymore,” Unikowsky said. “And so she's like disabling the parties and the court from having full information about these witnesses and potential conflicts.”
Even Cannon’s most obscure orders have been under intense scrutiny, in light of her history with the case.
“She has ruled in his favor, and she has issued rulings that the Court of Appeals has said did not comply with the law and the facts,” Weinstein noted.
Before his indictment, Trump challenged the FBI’s seizure of the documents at Mar-a-Lago, and Cannon issued a widely criticized order blocking the government from using them for their investigation, pending a special master’s review. The 11th Circuit unanimously overturned that decision, suggesting it was a “radical” restructure of criminal procedure.
Cannon has since sought to change the perception that she’s too deferential to the one-time president who appointed her. She recently denied an effort by Trump’s attorneys to delay his trial until after the next presidential election, instead putting it on the calendar months earlier on May 20, 2024.
Steve Reilly contributed to this report.
Trump asks for freedom to discuss evidence after lashing out at ‘number one draft pick’ judge in Jan. 6 case
By Dave Goldiner New York Daily News Last Updated: Aug 07, 2023
Former President Trump Monday asked a judge to issue only a narrow order restricting what he can say about evidence and witnesses as he awaits trial on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Hours after trashing U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan and special counsel Jack Smith, Trump’s lawyers asked the judge to only restrict Trump from revealing secret grand jury testimony, claiming that the Republican presidential frontrunner must have the right to talk about the case.
“The government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights. Worse, it does so against its administration’s primary political opponent, during an election season,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a filing submitted just before a 5 pm deadline.
[ Trump celebrates U.S. women’s soccer team loss, declares ‘USA is going to Hell!’ ]
The filing came in response to Smith’s demand for an order barring Trump from discussing any evidence publicly or threatening any potential witnesses.
Chutkan didn’t give any indication when she might rule.
Trump earlier blasted Chutkan as the prosecution’s “number one draft pick. He called for a new jurist to be appointed to oversee his historic trial even though his defense team has not made any such motion in court.
“Deranged Jack Smith is going before his number one draft pick, the Judge of his “dreams” (WHO MUST BE RECUSED!), in an attempt to take away my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS,” Trump posted on his social media site.
He later followed up that post with a more direct dispatch aimed at the potential gag orders, saying “I shouldn’t have a protective order placed on me because it would impinge upon my right to FREE SPEECH.”
The new outburst came after Trump issued a less-than-veiled threat over the weekend to retaliate against his perceived tormentors.
“If you go after me I’m coming after you,” Trump wrote.
Hours after trashing U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan and special counsel Jack Smith, Trump’s lawyers asked the judge to only restrict Trump from revealing secret grand jury testimony, claiming that the Republican presidential frontrunner must have the right to talk about the case.
“The government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights. Worse, it does so against its administration’s primary political opponent, during an election season,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a filing submitted just before a 5 pm deadline.
[ Trump celebrates U.S. women’s soccer team loss, declares ‘USA is going to Hell!’ ]
The filing came in response to Smith’s demand for an order barring Trump from discussing any evidence publicly or threatening any potential witnesses.
Chutkan didn’t give any indication when she might rule.
Trump earlier blasted Chutkan as the prosecution’s “number one draft pick. He called for a new jurist to be appointed to oversee his historic trial even though his defense team has not made any such motion in court.
“Deranged Jack Smith is going before his number one draft pick, the Judge of his “dreams” (WHO MUST BE RECUSED!), in an attempt to take away my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS,” Trump posted on his social media site.
He later followed up that post with a more direct dispatch aimed at the potential gag orders, saying “I shouldn’t have a protective order placed on me because it would impinge upon my right to FREE SPEECH.”
The new outburst came after Trump issued a less-than-veiled threat over the weekend to retaliate against his perceived tormentors.
“If you go after me I’m coming after you,” Trump wrote.
Biden Sets All-Time Presidential Record American Insider Story by David Rufful •
As of August 7, 2023, President Joe Biden just took his 367th day of vacation in just 2.5 years, which sets a record compared to any other president in recent history.
Biden has been on vacation for roughly 40% of his time in office. He is outpacing every single one of his modern predecessors.
Critics have pointed out that Biden has been on vacation for an entire year, even though his vacation days are not consecutive days
As of August 7, 2023, President Joe Biden just took his 367th day of vacation in just 2.5 years, which sets a record compared to any other president in recent history.
Biden has been on vacation for roughly 40% of his time in office. He is outpacing every single one of his modern predecessors.
Critics have pointed out that Biden has been on vacation for an entire year, even though his vacation days are not consecutive days
Monday, August 7, 2023
Why This April 2022 New York Times Story Is Suddenly Gaining New Attention (townhall.com) Katie Pavlich August 07, 2023
President Joe Biden and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre continue to insist Special Counsel Jack Smith's repeated indictments of former President Donald Trump are being conducted "independently" and without political bias or pressure.But a story from the New York Times published in April 2022 is gaining new attention, especially after Smith indicted Trump for speech surrounding the events of January 6, 2021 last week.
"The attorney general’s deliberative approach has come to frustrate Democratic allies of the White House and, at times, President Biden himself. As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, according to two people familiar with his comments. And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6," the paper reported.
Aug 4, 2023
'Hannity' panelists weigh in on the New York Times being 'radio silent' about their own reporting that President Biden wanted to see a January 6 indictment of former President Donald Trump.
nn
nn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
