Hijinx
Well-Known Member
It's a lot worse than this. We have a liturgy of things that have gone on since the last election and still there are idiots who support the Biden-Obama regime.
Trump News
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Previous Target of DOJ’s Trump Legal Hit Squad Alleges Witness Payoff Scheme
Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith is overseeing the current investigation into and indictment of Donald Trump. But as USA Today reported, Smith “built [his] reputation” in his previous role overseeing the prosecution of former Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.). And according to Renzi himself, in exclusive comments to PJ Media, there’s evidence tying Smith to illegal wiretaps, jury influencing, payoffs for false testimony, and other highly questionable behavior. The newly published allegations led Donald Trump to call Smith “deranged.”
Renzi was convicted on bribery and extortion charges, to which he pleaded “not guilty,” and was later given a full presidential pardon by Trump. While a 2019 complaint and request for investigation filed on Renzi’s behalf by respected legal firm Mayer Brown claim to provide evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, current Trump prosecutors Jack Smith and David Harbach were more directly implicated in the misconduct allegations—including a reported government payoff offer—than previously revealed.
The alleged prosecutorial misconduct of Smith and his team, both from the DOJ and FBI, included illegal wiretaps, concealment of exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence, destruction of evidence, and introduction of false testimony before and during Renzi’s trial. “The prosecutorial misconduct of Jack Smith and his lead prosecutor in my case, David Harbach, is what led to the presidential pardon” Trump gave him, the former congressman told PJ Media. He explained how he believes Smith and Harbach “tainted” his jury pool while working to exclude pro-life jurors since Renzi is a pro-life father of twelve.
Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith is overseeing the current investigation into and indictment of Donald Trump. But as USA Today reported, Smith “built [his] reputation” in his previous role overseeing the prosecution of former Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.). And according to Renzi himself, in exclusive comments to PJ Media, there’s evidence tying Smith to illegal wiretaps, jury influencing, payoffs for false testimony, and other highly questionable behavior. The newly published allegations led Donald Trump to call Smith “deranged.”
Renzi was convicted on bribery and extortion charges, to which he pleaded “not guilty,” and was later given a full presidential pardon by Trump. While a 2019 complaint and request for investigation filed on Renzi’s behalf by respected legal firm Mayer Brown claim to provide evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, current Trump prosecutors Jack Smith and David Harbach were more directly implicated in the misconduct allegations—including a reported government payoff offer—than previously revealed.
The alleged prosecutorial misconduct of Smith and his team, both from the DOJ and FBI, included illegal wiretaps, concealment of exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence, destruction of evidence, and introduction of false testimony before and during Renzi’s trial. “The prosecutorial misconduct of Jack Smith and his lead prosecutor in my case, David Harbach, is what led to the presidential pardon” Trump gave him, the former congressman told PJ Media. He explained how he believes Smith and Harbach “tainted” his jury pool while working to exclude pro-life jurors since Renzi is a pro-life father of twelve.
The case goes back to 2017, when Trump had just become president and Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress. At that time, several Democrats on the House Oversight Committee demanded that the Trump administration produce records concerning how Trump acquired the rights to develop the historic Old Post Office building, a few blocks away from the White House, as a luxury hotel. The Trump administration refused. Trump critics have alleged that the deal smacked of corruption and said that various organizations, including foreign governments, booked the hotel to curry favor with the administration.
The legal issue was whether individual members of Congress have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to sue an executive agency to compel it to disclose information that the members have requested under 5 U.S.C. Section 2954. That law states that a request for information must be acted upon if just seven members of the House Oversight Committee or five members of its counterpart in the Senate demand it. Article III of the Constitution is the article that created the federal judiciary.
A federal district judge threw out the Democrats’ lawsuit in 2018, finding that they lacked standing to bring the case. The court found that the lawmakers weren’t injured by being denied the documents and that there was “no historical precedent for members of Congress to even attempt to enforce unmet … demands through the federal courts.”
But a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned that ruling on a 2–1 vote in 2020, finding that the lawmakers had the right to sue. The panel sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration, stating, “The separation of powers, it must be remembered, is not a one-way street that runs to the aggrandizement of the executive branch.”
The Supreme Court’s new decision came in an unsigned order. The order remands the case to the D.C. Circuit “with instructions to dismiss the case.” The court did not explain why it made its decision.
www.theepochtimes.com
The legal issue was whether individual members of Congress have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to sue an executive agency to compel it to disclose information that the members have requested under 5 U.S.C. Section 2954. That law states that a request for information must be acted upon if just seven members of the House Oversight Committee or five members of its counterpart in the Senate demand it. Article III of the Constitution is the article that created the federal judiciary.
A federal district judge threw out the Democrats’ lawsuit in 2018, finding that they lacked standing to bring the case. The court found that the lawmakers weren’t injured by being denied the documents and that there was “no historical precedent for members of Congress to even attempt to enforce unmet … demands through the federal courts.”
But a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned that ruling on a 2–1 vote in 2020, finding that the lawmakers had the right to sue. The panel sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration, stating, “The separation of powers, it must be remembered, is not a one-way street that runs to the aggrandizement of the executive branch.”
The Supreme Court’s new decision came in an unsigned order. The order remands the case to the D.C. Circuit “with instructions to dismiss the case.” The court did not explain why it made its decision.
Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Trump’s Former DC Hotel
“Until and unless Congress cancels these funds, the law requires DHS to use the funds consistent with their appropriated purpose,” the U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a statement announcing the wall construction. Previously, President Joe Biden’s administration had called on Congress to take action to prevent more of the wall from being constructed, which is unlikely for now because Republicans control the House.
That statement said that the approximately 20 miles of “steel bollard panels” will be erected along the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley Sector, as mandated by a 2019 border barrier appropriation under Trump’s administration. It noted that “a substantial portion of unobligated funds that had been diverted from the Department of Defense” have been returned to the Pentagon.
About $190 million is left in the 2019 spending bill, said DHS, adding that it first attempted to use funds for “other priority projects” such as “environmental, and other remediation measures, system attributes for existing barrier, and environmental mitigation projects.”
“In addition, DHS authorized CBP to move forward with the Yuma Andrade and El Centro Calexico Fence Replacement Projects to mitigate immediate life, safety and operational risks to the local community, migrants, and Border Patrol agents in the area,” the statement Friday said. “Both projects will replace dilapidated segments of legacy fencing that presently create safety and security concerns for USBP agents, migrants, and the surrounding community.”
www.theepochtimes.com
That statement said that the approximately 20 miles of “steel bollard panels” will be erected along the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley Sector, as mandated by a 2019 border barrier appropriation under Trump’s administration. It noted that “a substantial portion of unobligated funds that had been diverted from the Department of Defense” have been returned to the Pentagon.
About $190 million is left in the 2019 spending bill, said DHS, adding that it first attempted to use funds for “other priority projects” such as “environmental, and other remediation measures, system attributes for existing barrier, and environmental mitigation projects.”
“In addition, DHS authorized CBP to move forward with the Yuma Andrade and El Centro Calexico Fence Replacement Projects to mitigate immediate life, safety and operational risks to the local community, migrants, and Border Patrol agents in the area,” the statement Friday said. “Both projects will replace dilapidated segments of legacy fencing that presently create safety and security concerns for USBP agents, migrants, and the surrounding community.”
Federal Agency Forced to Build Part of Trump’s Border Wall
The publication reported that Trump suggested using the tax collecting agency to target Peter Strzok and Lisa Page:
The Times noted the statement, which was submitted under penalty of perjury, was revealed on Thursday as part of a lawsuit being filed by Strzok and Page. Strzok led the FBI’s investigation into possible ties between Trump and the Russian government. Page was a lawyer with the bureau. The two allege Trump violated their privacy when his administration publicly disclosed text messages between the two.
The report noted it is unclear whether the IRS ended up probing the tax filings of the two, who were also found to have had an affair. Both were dismissed by the FBI.
www.mediaite.com
The Times noted the statement, which was submitted under penalty of perjury, was revealed on Thursday as part of a lawsuit being filed by Strzok and Page. Strzok led the FBI’s investigation into possible ties between Trump and the Russian government. Page was a lawyer with the bureau. The two allege Trump violated their privacy when his administration publicly disclosed text messages between the two.
The report noted it is unclear whether the IRS ended up probing the tax filings of the two, who were also found to have had an affair. Both were dismissed by the FBI.
Trump’s Ex-Chief of Staff Says He Discussed Using IRS to Retaliate Against FBI Employees Investigating Him
During his presidency, Donald Trump discussed having the Internal Revenue Service conduct investigations into two FBI agents probing his 2016 campaign's alleged ties to Russia, according to a sworn statement by his former chief of staff, John Kelly.
www.mediaite.com
Fox News Retracts Fake News Hit Piece on Donald Trump
Fox News’s story had the following headline: “Former Trump Cabinet member tells him to ‘kiss’ his ‘butt.”
The since-retracted, purportedly exclusive story read, in part:
In 2017, Trump fired Price after Politico revealed he took multiple taxpayer-funded private jet trips for personal reasons.
Dan Diamond, the reporter who broke the Price story in 2017, said Price never communicated with Fox News about the story.
“A source close to Price said he: (1) never heard from Fox News on this matter (2) did not write an email to Fox News on this matter (3) this is not Price’s quote,” Diamond tweeted. “Screenshot of Fox News story below.”
The push to disqualify Trump from 2024 using the 14th Amendment
The groups are pushing efforts across the nation to bar Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot next November, urging secretaries of state and chief election officials through letters to use what is known as the insurrectionist disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment to block Trump from “any future ballot,” according to Free Speech For People.
The groups are expected to hold a series of rallies and events starting Sunday outside the offices of the secretaries of state of California, Oregon, Colorado, and Georgia for their campaign, according to the Hill.
Last month, the groups issued a letter to Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar pushing the notion that the current GOP front-runner is constitutionally ineligible to make another bid for the White House.
“Allowing a known insurrectionist to appear on the ballot is inconsistent with your obligation and oath of office to support the U.S. Constitution,” the letter reads. It emphasized that states don't need permission from Congress to enforce the Constitution.
2024 Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that former President Donald Trump is “probably the most successful debater in the country” since Lincoln-Douglas in an interview with Fox News on Friday.
Kennedy told the hosts of Fox and Friends that Trump was “extraordinary” for taking down the other 16 Republican candidates during the 2016 presidential election. Trump is “unlikely to participate” in the upcoming Republican primary debates as he’s confident in his high lead in national and state polls, according to one of his advisors who spoke to The Hill.
“We’re going to try to get [Biden] to debate, we think it’s really important. And it’s important for, I think, the Democratic Party because ultimately the president is going to have to debate a Republican, and the Republican likely, we don’t know, but it’s going to be Trump,” RFK Jr. said during the interview. “Trump is probably the most successful debater in this country since Lincoln-Douglas in the way he dispatched 16 Republican opponents one after the other in 2016, was really quite extraordinary.”
dailycaller.com
Kennedy told the hosts of Fox and Friends that Trump was “extraordinary” for taking down the other 16 Republican candidates during the 2016 presidential election. Trump is “unlikely to participate” in the upcoming Republican primary debates as he’s confident in his high lead in national and state polls, according to one of his advisors who spoke to The Hill.
“We’re going to try to get [Biden] to debate, we think it’s really important. And it’s important for, I think, the Democratic Party because ultimately the president is going to have to debate a Republican, and the Republican likely, we don’t know, but it’s going to be Trump,” RFK Jr. said during the interview. “Trump is probably the most successful debater in this country since Lincoln-Douglas in the way he dispatched 16 Republican opponents one after the other in 2016, was really quite extraordinary.”
RFK Jr. Says Trump Is ‘The Most Successful Debater’ Since Lincoln-Douglas
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that former President Donald Trump is
Trump Indicted For Murder Of Tupac
LAS VEGAS — The infamous unsolved murder of rapper Tupac Shakur on the streets of Las Vegas, once thought to be a hit by the Southside Crips, is now believed to be the work of none other than former President Donald J. Trump, who authorities believe acted alone. Trump has been indicted for the murder.
A charge of murder in the first degree was brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith. "Tupac was murdered on Flamingo Road, less than two miles from where Trump Hotel later opened in 2017," he said. "Coincidence? I think not!"
babylonbee.com
LAS VEGAS — The infamous unsolved murder of rapper Tupac Shakur on the streets of Las Vegas, once thought to be a hit by the Southside Crips, is now believed to be the work of none other than former President Donald J. Trump, who authorities believe acted alone. Trump has been indicted for the murder.
A charge of murder in the first degree was brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith. "Tupac was murdered on Flamingo Road, less than two miles from where Trump Hotel later opened in 2017," he said. "Coincidence? I think not!"
Trump Indicted For Murder Of Tupac
LAS VEGAS — The infamous unsolved murder of rapper Tupac Shakur on the streets of Las Vegas, once thought to be a hit by the Southside Crips, is now believed to be the work of none other than former President Donald J. Trump, who authorities believe acted alone. Trump has been indicted for the...
babylonbee.com
Trump shares ominous video to Truth Social as Jan. 6 indictment hangs in the balance
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-shares-ominous-video-truth-010459119.html#
In the clip, originating from the account MAGA.com, a stern image of Trump can be seen while a voiceover from a 2020 conversation about Iran can be heard saying, "If you f**k around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before." As The Daily Beast points out in their coverage of the new video, "the message seems to target special counsel Jack Smith, one of Trump's current biggest foes." In Mediaite's coverage, they remind that earlier in the week, Trump weighed in on the possibility of Smith seeking jail time for him, saying, "I think it's a very dangerous thing to even talk about, because we do have a tremendously passionate group of voters, much more passion than they had in 2020 and much more passion than they had in 2016."
gemma_rae
Well-Known Member
MNSBS
Or 'Media Non Sensical Bull Stuff'
The body of FDR is to be exhumed today to face a Grand Jury for inciting hate speach against fear. His infamous comments of white supremacist hate, " The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”, has left a pall of suspicion around the legacy of Fear itself, and cannot, and will not, be tolerated by the Potato Head Administration! "This is the great 'Fear' we face today!" exclaimed President Potato Head as Fear nodded in approval.
P.S. The above is satire. I think that means its not true, but don't fear Fear.
Or 'Media Non Sensical Bull Stuff'
The body of FDR is to be exhumed today to face a Grand Jury for inciting hate speach against fear. His infamous comments of white supremacist hate, " The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”, has left a pall of suspicion around the legacy of Fear itself, and cannot, and will not, be tolerated by the Potato Head Administration! "This is the great 'Fear' we face today!" exclaimed President Potato Head as Fear nodded in approval.
P.S. The above is satire. I think that means its not true, but don't fear Fear.
Dershowitz: Trump Indictment Does Not Meet High Standard Required For DOJ To Influence 2024 Election
Alan Dershowitz weighs in on the third indictment of former President Trump, Tuesday evening on Newsmax with Greta Van Susteren.
"It's just not strong enough or specific enough to satisfy the very high standard that's required when a president of the United States allows his Justice Department to indict his opponent, and influence the outcome of the election," Dershowitz said.
"It doesn't satisfy the high standard that should be required when you're going after your political opponent. That's banana republic, when you go after your political opponents by indicting them."
Did Trump Really Believe the Election Was Stolen? Here Is Why It Matters.
The new federal charges against Trump depend on the assumption that his claims were "knowingly false."
According to the indictment, Trump did all this as part of a criminal plot to remain in power. He knew his grievance was phony, and he knew the tactics he was using to overturn the election results were illegal.
That interpretation is plausible, but so is an alternative explanation that will be at the center of Trump's defense. Trump, who to this day insists the election was stolen, maintains that he was pursuing legitimate remedies for a grave injustice. He says he relied on advice from lawyers like Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, both of whom the indictment describes as co-conspirators. Unlike the many skeptics in Trump's circle, those advisers reinforced his conviction that he had won and assured him that he had legal options to change the outcome even after the electors were certified.
To support its interpretation, the government cites evidence suggesting that Trump understood he had lost. During a meeting with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and other national security advisers on January 3, 2021, the indictment says, Trump "calmly" accepted a recommendation that the issue they were discussing should be left for the next administration, since Biden's inauguration was just 17 days away. "Yeah, you're right," Trump allegedly said. "It's too late for us. We're going to give that to the next guy."
Three days before the Capitol riot, that conversation suggests, Trump acknowledged the reality that he would be leaving the White House on January 20. But that does not necessarily mean he accepted the legitimacy of that result. On the day of the riot, the indictment notes, Trump declined to intervene, "instead repeatedly remarking that the people at the Capitol were angry because the election had been stolen." Late that afternoon, Trump "joined others in the outer Oval Office to watch the attack on the Capitol on television" and remarked, "See, this is what happens when they try to steal an election. These people are angry. These people are really angry about it. This is what happens." That sounds more like a true believer than a con man.
In favor of the latter reading, the indictment notes that Trump had previously expressed skepticism about a baroque conspiracy theory promoted by Sidney Powell, a lawyer whom the indictment describes as "Co-Conspirator 3." Two weeks after the election, Powell appeared at a press conference alongside Giuliani and Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis, who described Powell as a member of the campaign's "elite strike force team." In that capacity, Powell outlined an elaborate international plot involving Dominion Voting Systems, tricky software, fake ballots, election officials across the country, George Soros, the Clinton Foundation, deceased Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, and "communist money through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely China."
At a meeting with advisers that same month, the indictment says, Trump conceded that Powell's "claims regarding the voting machine company" were unsubstantiated and remarked that she sounded "crazy." Trump nevertheless publicly embraced the essence of Powell's story: that software supplied by Dominion had "switched" massive numbers of Trump votes to Biden votes. Did Trump cynically promote that claim, knowing it to be false, or did he decide, in his desperation to avoid conceding the election, that maybe it was not so crazy after all? With Trump, either motivation is possible.
The new federal charges against Trump depend on the assumption that his claims were "knowingly false."
According to the indictment, Trump did all this as part of a criminal plot to remain in power. He knew his grievance was phony, and he knew the tactics he was using to overturn the election results were illegal.
That interpretation is plausible, but so is an alternative explanation that will be at the center of Trump's defense. Trump, who to this day insists the election was stolen, maintains that he was pursuing legitimate remedies for a grave injustice. He says he relied on advice from lawyers like Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, both of whom the indictment describes as co-conspirators. Unlike the many skeptics in Trump's circle, those advisers reinforced his conviction that he had won and assured him that he had legal options to change the outcome even after the electors were certified.
To support its interpretation, the government cites evidence suggesting that Trump understood he had lost. During a meeting with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and other national security advisers on January 3, 2021, the indictment says, Trump "calmly" accepted a recommendation that the issue they were discussing should be left for the next administration, since Biden's inauguration was just 17 days away. "Yeah, you're right," Trump allegedly said. "It's too late for us. We're going to give that to the next guy."
Three days before the Capitol riot, that conversation suggests, Trump acknowledged the reality that he would be leaving the White House on January 20. But that does not necessarily mean he accepted the legitimacy of that result. On the day of the riot, the indictment notes, Trump declined to intervene, "instead repeatedly remarking that the people at the Capitol were angry because the election had been stolen." Late that afternoon, Trump "joined others in the outer Oval Office to watch the attack on the Capitol on television" and remarked, "See, this is what happens when they try to steal an election. These people are angry. These people are really angry about it. This is what happens." That sounds more like a true believer than a con man.
In favor of the latter reading, the indictment notes that Trump had previously expressed skepticism about a baroque conspiracy theory promoted by Sidney Powell, a lawyer whom the indictment describes as "Co-Conspirator 3." Two weeks after the election, Powell appeared at a press conference alongside Giuliani and Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis, who described Powell as a member of the campaign's "elite strike force team." In that capacity, Powell outlined an elaborate international plot involving Dominion Voting Systems, tricky software, fake ballots, election officials across the country, George Soros, the Clinton Foundation, deceased Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, and "communist money through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely China."
At a meeting with advisers that same month, the indictment says, Trump conceded that Powell's "claims regarding the voting machine company" were unsubstantiated and remarked that she sounded "crazy." Trump nevertheless publicly embraced the essence of Powell's story: that software supplied by Dominion had "switched" massive numbers of Trump votes to Biden votes. Did Trump cynically promote that claim, knowing it to be false, or did he decide, in his desperation to avoid conceding the election, that maybe it was not so crazy after all? With Trump, either motivation is possible.
Jonathan Turley concerned about 'chilling' new Trump charges: 'When is the price too high?'
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley warned the latest indictment of former President Donald Trump has "chilling" implications for free speech in America. On "The Brian Kilmeade Show" on Wednesday, Turley explained that the Constitution protects Trump's ability to claim the 2020 election was stolen, even if he knew his claim was false.
JONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, ‘No, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.’ Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment. The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, ‘But not here because Trump was told it was a lie.’ Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. …
Don’t worry about ‘conservative’ law professors saying the 14th Amendment bars Trump’s presidency
By Andrea WidburgThe mainstream media is excited: Two “conservative” law professors argue Trump is barred from running under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. There are just two problems: These professors aren’t conservative, and their argument is foolish.
The New York Times sets the stage:
Their apparent argument is that Section 3’s amnesty clause must be applied on a case-by-case basis. Unless a congressional super-majority “pardons” Trump, he’s ineligible for the presidency because he’s an insurrectionist. This is so wrong that I hope you forgive a longer post.
William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen are the law professors behind the soon-to-be-published article. Although both identify as “conservative,” they are fanatic Never Trumpers. In 2016, they signed a petition arguing that Trump was too dangerous to be president. His conservative governance didn’t change their opinion.
In 2018, Paulsen demanded Trump’s impeachment, a demand he reiterated after Trump had already left the White House. That same year, he fretted that Trump might ignore Supreme Court rulings, a concern he hasn’t expressed despite Biden’s open disdain for the Supreme Court.
Baude boasted that he voted for Hillary in 2016, even though it would hand the Supreme Court to leftists for a generation.
The professors are so fanatically anti-Trump, they’d seemingly rather have open borders, higher taxes, racialized politics, a “social justice” military, the anti-human climate change agenda, lockdowns, transgender madness, and the entire panoply of constitutional attacks that Democrats support. Significantly, they’re also not originalists.
There are three schools of constitutional analysis. The leftist school is post-modern: “We can interpret the Constitution to mean anything we want it to mean, irrespective of what the Founders intended when they ratified it.” Conservatives opt for textualism (look only at the words, if possible) and originalism (look at words and intent).
Textualism is a fine approach if the words are “Don’t drive through an intersection if the light facing you is red.” But what if the words are that it is “unlawful…for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”?
Judge Claimed Trump Might Flee If He Learned of Secret Order
https://img.theepochtimes.com/asset...udge-beryl-howell-e1640979014949-1200x722.jpgWarrant Approved, Reaffirmed
The warrant was approved on Jan. 17, the same day it was requested.Judge Howell also that day entered the non-disclosure order, which was then challenged by Twitter.
Mr. Smith obtained the warrant as part of his probe into President Trump’s effort to investigate the 2020 presidential election. Mr. Smith has since brought charges against the former president, including conspiracy and obstruction.
Twitter said it should be able to notify President Trump about the warrant because the matter might involve executive privilege issues since the data included messages that Twitter says were “confidential communications” between President Trump and senior advisers. Letting President Trump know would enable him to challenge the warrant, Twitter said, and was allowed under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
“All we’re trying to do is exercise our First Amendment rights to notify the user so the user may assert that privilege if he chooses,” a Twitter lawyer said in the hearing.
Government lawyers said there was no evidence that confidential communications were among the data they sought and that the government’s compelling interest in keeping the warrant secret from President Trump overrode any rights of Twitter. Judge Howell sided with the government, ordered Twitter to comply with the warrant, and denied its request to modify or vacate the non-disclosure order.
Twitter eventually produced an extensive amount of information to Mr. Smith’s team, including deleted messages, draft posts, and location data of users who posted to President Trump’s account.
President Trump has decried the development, writing on Truth Social that the actions were aimed at infringing on his 2024 presidential campaign. He added, “Does the First Amendment still exist?”
Trump Is About to Drop Something Soon That Will Make Liberals Go Hypoxic
Former President Donald Trump is dropping a new report on the reported election fraud during the 2020 election. It’ll be around 100 pages, released next Monday morning in Bedminster, New Jersey. Trump described the findings as “conclusive” and “irrefutable.” It doesn’t matter because the Left is going to go apoplectic, especially given the recent indictments against the former president (via NYT):