Login
The battle of Columbia University is underway in New York City as “Palestinian Protestors” have created a swath of ungoverned space. Jason Rantz, a Seattle talk radio personality, said, “There’s a new autonomous zone, this time at Columbia University and it’s fueled by hatred of Jews. The longer the university allows it to stand, the more difficult it will be to dismantle — and the more hate it will foment.” Jason has experienced first-hand the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone that has contributed to a Seattle now in decline.
“Palestinian Protestors” are the latest fad of the angry outrage movement. The tone and tenor is ugly and hostile to Jewish students and faculty. Any attempt to counter-protest is met with violence or ejection from Campus. Professor Shai Davidai has been barred from campus by officials since they cannot assure his safety. Prohibiting Jewish faculty, staff, and students for their own safety is twisted and perverted logic. The violence at Columbia is rapidly spreading to other campuses. Texas Governor Greg Abbot oversaw a firm response at University of Texas Austin when radicals tried to shut the campus down. Arrests were actually made at UT Austin, a departure from years of officials in many cities failing to provide civil order.
The sudden rise in violence on college campuses is occurring while key national security officials have been giving stark warnings to the American public. FBI Director Wray has been quite histrionic about an impending ‘coordinated terror attack’ with the threat at a ‘whole other level’. Wray’s warnings seem dire and he has been disingenuous on several topics, but this call to red alert seems authentic. It is not well known, there is Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 191, Duty to Warn. Under ICD 191 there is a legal obligation of officials (i.e. Wray) to provide a warning regarding threats to specific individuals or groups of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, and kidnapping. Wray and other senior officials are likely triggered by their legal obligations under ICD 191.
Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (DHS CISA) Director Jennifer Easterly has been equally dramatic with her comments of “aggressive cyber operations” by China that can not only take down infrastructure but also “induce societal panic,” which seems to acknowledge what Dr. Malone and others were correct about the mass psychosis of the Wuhan bio-lab, COVID, and the vaccine scam. General Haugh, Director of National Security Agency and Cyber Command has pointed out that China was securing access to the United States’ critical networks before a direct confrontation between the two countries would occur. Translated, China is preparing for war. Is the sudden initiation of the Summer of Love 2024 related to Chinese Communist malign activities or the warnings from U.S. Government officials? If nothing else it provides additional chaos and distraction which provides a smokescreen.
The violent “Pro-Palestinian” outrage mobs have a lineage to the Summer of 2020. Black Lives Matter and Antifa were replete with those who were easily triggered by social justice messaging. There was also a disturbing intersection between these groups and public-school faculty and staff. Since 2020 these same personalities have shape shifted into drag show activists, violent transgender militants, the squatter movement, and now “Palestinian” activists. Getting paid to protest, why not become part of the Social Justice rent a mob? It’s a great gig if you can get it, and it’s quite easy to get.
China has the Digital Twin Strategy that helps TikTok fine tune their feed to address the positive and negative affirmation of the individual easily influenced by outrage postings. Using Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, and Big Data analytics, TikTok can deliver tailored messages to their 1 billion plus users. For Taiwan Election Interference, it was estimated that 10% of the TikTok messages were tailored to the individual. At 1 billion users, TikTok can deliver 100 million tailored message streams and weight them toward the American audience – that is a lot of influence. Who is paying the money to this street violence cadre in America for their violence? Chinese Communist Groups, Hamas (which is Iran, which is China), American non-profits receiving U.S. Government grants, and Soros/Arabella dark money. Big Media has surged their army of Soros Funded Fact Checkers to help hide the evidence trail on this connection.
The seminal difference between 2020 and 2024 is the flood of Chinese military age males coming across the unsecure southern border. Chinese operators were out on the street in 2020 enabling societal panic over the COVID narrative, but stayed discrete. Another lesson learned by Taiwan was that advanced social media use by China still heavily utilizes on the ground collaborators to fine tune, correct, and spread the social messaging. After 2020, Chinese nationals became bolder and started to create the secret Chinese Police Station Infrastructure in America which has been somewhat degraded, but not totally shut down by the FBI. Chinese illegals also set up the bio-lab discovered in California and are routinely challenging the security at sensitive U.S. Government facilities.
Chinese illegals have been pivoting toward “legal cannabis”, drawn by the high cash nature of the un-bankable cannabis proceeds and are killing each other. This situation is becoming pervasive across America. With the surging rise of malign activities performed by Chinese operatives inside of America and the clarion call of multiple national security leaders on imminent, coordinated mass casualty events, not drawing a line, at least in pencil, between the sudden rash of “Palestinian” protestors and the flood of Chinese military age males across the southern border is foolish.
The post Summer of Love 2024 Violence Makes an Early Appearance and is Spreading Fast appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Jimmy Lai during an interview in Hong Kong, May 29, 2020
Potential recruits who aspire to join the Third Separate Assault Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces take part in a basic military testing course in Kyiv, Ukraine, March 27, 2024.
Article tags
Article tags
Nearly half of Democrats would support Donald Trump’s plan for mass deportations during his second presidential term, according to new polling data.
The poll, conducted by Axios in partnership with Harris Poll, found that 51 per cent of the American public would support the plan, including 42 per cent of Democrats, 68 per cent of Republicans and 46 per cent of independents.
Axios explains:
Half of Americans — including 42% of Democrats — say they’d support mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, according to a new Axios Vibes survey by The Harris Poll. And 30% of Democrats — as well as 46% of Republicans — now say they’d end birthright citizenship, something guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Americans are open to former President Trump’s harshest immigration plans, spurred on by a record surge of illegal border crossings and a relentless messaging war waged by Republicans. President Biden is keenly aware the crisis threatens his re-election. He’s sought to flip the script by accusing Trump of sabotaging Congress’ most conservative bipartisan immigration bill in decades.
But when it comes to blame, Biden so far has failed to shift the narrative: 32% of respondents say his administration is “most responsible” for the crisis, outranking any other political or structural factor.
Mark Penn, chairman of The Harris Poll and a former Clinton pollster, said the findings were a warning to Joe Biden that “efforts to shift responsibility for the issue to Trump are not going to work.”
“I was surprised at the public support for large-scale deportations,” he remarked. “I think they’re just sending a message to politicians: ‘Get this under control.”
In January, Trump pledged to implement the “largest deportation effort” in American history as the Biden regime continues to allow millions of illegal aliens to enter the country every year.
“Many of those people come from jails and prisons, many of those people come from mental institutions and insane asylums, and many of those people are terrorists,” he said at the time.
“We are going to have the largest deportation effort in the history of our country, bringing everybody back where they came from. We have no choice.”
The post SHOCK POLL: Nearly Half of Democrats Would Support Trump’s Plan For Mass Deportations appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs on Tuesday vetoed legislation that would define residency in Arizona and require proof of residency, such as a home rental agreement or ownership, to vote in the state’s elections.
Hobbs stole the 2022 election for Governor from Kari Lake, and she is getting ready to rig the 2024 election for Joe Biden.
SB 2581 stipulates that “a resident is an individual who has actual physical presence in the state for at least one hundred eighty-one days with the intent to remain” but provides exceptions for individuals to vote if they provide evidence of employment, residential property, child school enrollment, and active duty military service.
Hobbs’ veto comes as flyers instructing illegal immigrants to vote for Joe Biden in the forthcoming U.S. election have been reportedly distributed at a non-governmental organization (NGO) in Mexico, according to an investigation by The Oversight Project, a watchdog initiative linked to the Heritage Foundation.
Additionally, voters are not required to show proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections on a “federal only” ballot.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, Hobbs also vetoed a bill Tuesday that would have allowed Arizona homeowners to remove an unlawful occupant or a “squatter” from their property.
Hobbs has vetoed over 185 bills since taking office last January. This shatters Democrat Janet Napolitano’s record of 181 vetoes during an entire four-year term.
Hobbs vetoed SB 2581, claiming that it "creates additional, unnecessary barriers for individuals registering to vote."
Critics of the bill claim that it would bar out-of-state college students from voting in Arizona's elections as the bill defines "resident" as an individual physical presence in the state for 181 days with the intent to remain.
However, the bill outlines six exceptions, which would allow students and temporary residents to vote.
From the bill text:
THE COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE COUNTY RECORDER MAY ESTABLISH A PHYSICAL PRESENCE REQUIREMENT OF LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE DAYS IF THE INDIVIDUAL DEMONSTRATES AN INTENT TO REMAIN BY PROVIDING EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. EMPLOYMENT.
2. PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
3. RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
4. PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
5. THE ENROLLMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE INDIVIDUAL'S CHILDREN IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL.
6. ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER IDENTIFICATION FOR SERVICE MEMBERS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS.
The post Lawless Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs Vetoes Bill to Require Proof of Residency for Voting appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
U.S. Army National Guard soldiers repair a razor wire-laden fence along the bank of the Rio Grande after it was breached by migrants who crossed from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, into El Paso, Texas, April 23, 2024.
(Note: Thank you for supporting businesses like the one presenting a sponsored message below and working with them through the links below which benefits Gateway Pundit. We appreciate your support!)
“Dr. Eric Topol, founder of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, said the finding of viral particles in milk on grocery store shelves means the outbreak is probably more widespread than we’ve known.
“The dissemination to cows is far greater than we have been led to believe,” Topol said in an email Tuesday.”
“The FDA assurance that the dairy supply is safe is nice, but it’s not based on extensive assessment yet, which they acknowledge, and won’t engender trust and confidence because it comes in the wake of USDA mishandling,” he added.
“Out of an abundance of caution, we are adding Tamiflu to the Contagion Kit. Tamiflu is a safe medication approved treat Influenza type A, viruses like avian flu. We will continue to closely monitor this situation and make further recommendations as warranted.”
) is an antiviral medication that disrupts replication of the Influenza A and B virus, including the avian ‘bird flu’ H5N1 variant, within the body to reduce the severity of flu symptoms.
) – 10 tabletsThis is the perfect emergency kit at the perfect price. Every home should have this for peace of mind. – Rebecca B.
This is absolutely great! I encourage everyone to buy one of these for emergencies!! – Melody H.
Peace of mind. It is an amazing peace of mind to have this kit in case of emergencies and shortages. The Wellness Company did an excellent job of getting this to me in a timely manner and I and thankful to have it. – Phyllis T.
The post FDA Says Bird Flu Discovered in Grocery Store Milk – Here Is One Way To Be Prepared appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
A majority of Americans favor the mass deportations of illegal migrants, establishment media site Axios admitted Thursday.
The post Axios Admits Majority Supports Donald Trump’s Mass Deportations appeared first on Breitbart.
The Gateway Pundit reported on Woke ‘Reacher’ star Alan Ritchson coming under fire after an interview with The Hollywood Reporter (THR) slamming President Trump, MAGA voters, and police officers.
He told THR, “I’m a Christian quite simply because of what Jesus calls us to do. Love other people until death. It doesn’t mean we’re all to be hung on a cross, but how can I suffer for you? That is a beautiful thing.”
He added, “Christians today have become the most vitriolic tribe. It is so antithetical to what Jesus was calling us to be and to do,” before then attacking President Trump.
Ritchson continues, without merit, “Trump is a rapist and a con man, and yet the entire Christian church seems to be treat him like he’s their poster child and it’s unreal,” Ritchson adding, “I don’t understand it.”
Ritchson also addressed the death of Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old who was shot and killed during a drug warrant search in Louisville, Kentucky, in 2020.
Addressing the image the actor shared in August of 2020, the actor told THR, “That was a tragic case,” adding, “Cops get away with murder all the time, and the fact that we can’t really hold them accountable for their improprieties is disturbing to me.”
“We should completely reform the way that we do it. I mean, you shouldn’t have to spend more time getting an education as a hairstylist than as a cop who’s armed with a deadly weapon,” he went on to propose. “We should make it very hard for people to make mistakes or abuse power in our institutions.”
Now, The Fraternal Order of Police has responded to Ritchson’s comments on X.
“While Mr. Ritchson gets his face and forehead powdered on set, our officers are out doing a job he doesn’t have the courage to do.”
“While he gets to hear loud pops and have blanks fired at him, our officers feel the heat of the bullets as they pierce their skin. There are no take two’s or take three’s in real life Mr. Ritchson.”
“We have people who want to kill us and we play for keeps. Just another useless Hollywood actor, virtue signaling for attention at the expense of brave police officers around this country.”
“Go back to your pampered life and let the heroes handle this.”
While Mr. Ritchson gets his face and forehead powdered on set, our officers are out doing a job he doesn’t have the courage to do.
While he gets to hear loud pops and have blanks fired at him, our officers feel the heat of the bullets as they pierce their skin.
There are no… pic.twitter.com/50CbfGfQ46
— National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) (@GLFOP) April 12, 2024
The post Fraternal Order Of Police Responds to Woke ‘Reacher’ Star Alan Ritchson: “Go Back To Your Pampered Life And Let The Heroes Handle This” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Donald Trump stuck to campaign messaging Thursday before walking into his trial, announcing plans to hold rallies in the Bronx and at Madison Square Garden.
The post Donald Trump Plans Historic Rallies in Bronx, Madison Square Garden: ‘Good Chance of Winning’ New York appeared first on Breitbart.
Google claims it is stepping up efforts to combat online "misinformation" ahead of the European Union's parliamentary elections in June with a new "prebunking" initiative. The European elections will likely serve as a dry run for Google's attempts to influence the 2024 presidential election.
The post Thought Police: Google Launches “Prebunking” Campaign to Counter ‘Election Misinformation’ appeared first on Breitbart.
The appeals court identified additional errors and decided that Weinstein had not received a fair trial— which is true.
The post Nolte: Appeals Court Rightly Overturns Harvey Weinstein NY Conviction appeared first on Breitbart.
Consumer spending weakened by much more than expected while inflation accelerated.
The post Stagflation Shock: GDP Growth Slows Much More Than Expected While Inflation Accelerates appeared first on Breitbart.
WHAT IF 'KING' ORDERS COUP?
Drudge Report Feed needs your support! Become a Patron
TRUMP CLAIMS ASSASSINATION PRIVILEGE!
SUPREME COURT SHOCK
KILL A RIVAL, KILL AN ENEMY
SUPREME COURT SHOCK
Drudge Report Feed needs your support! Become a Patron
KILL HILLARY?
Drudge Report Feed needs your support! Become a Patron
President Trump on Thursday morning arrived at a construction site to greet union workers in New York.
Trump made the surprise visit to the construction site ahead of his ‘hush money’ trial in Manhattan.
“I did nothing wrong. It’s a political witch hunt. It’s election interference. That’s all it is!” Trump said to thunderous chants of “USA!” “USA!”
According to The New York Post, supporters lined up as early as 5 am to catch a glimpse of Trump.
“We love Trump because he loves this country!” one supporter told The Post.
You would never see this kind of energy with Joe Biden.
WATCH:
GOOD MORNING FROM NEW YORK!
Union workers chant “USA” as President Trump visits their construction site pic.twitter.com/KjcZ9UzvX3
— Karoline Leavitt (@kleavittnh) April 25, 2024
The union workers love Trump.
New York union leader Bobby Bartels trashed the Democrat party after he met with Trump on Thursday morning.
“We are basically Democrats— all of us. [But] after what’s happened the last 4 years in this country, Democrats have basically pushed everybody to the other side,” Bobby Bartels told Newsmax.
WATCH:
New York union leader Bobby Bartels after meeting with Trump in NYC:
“We are basically Democrats— all of us. [But] after what’s happened the last 4 years in this country, Democrats have basically pushed everybody to the other side.” pic.twitter.com/VQLAJAGcGL
— Addison Smith (@AddisonSmithTV) April 25, 2024
The post New York Union Workers Chant “USA!” As President Trump Visits Their Construction Site – Union Leader Trashes Democrats, Praises Trump (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Servicemen of the 1148th Separate Artillery Brigade of Air Assault Troops of Ukraine fire an M777 howitzer towards Russian troops in Donetsk Region, Ukraine, April 20, 2024.
The District Attorney for El Paso, Bill Hicks, has indicted 140 illegal aliens on rioting charges after a leftist county judge attempted to dismiss the case against them.
El Paso Times reports that Hicks presented the charges to a grand jury on Tuesday after El Paso County Judge Ruben Morales dismissed the charges on grounds of lack of probable cause.
This is the moment when TX National Guard became overrun by migrants rioting to get across the border here in El Paso today
We were there and saw it all happen. Absolute chaos here. pic.twitter.com/VN6Kf663ie
— Jennie Taer (@JennieSTaer) March 21, 2024
Hicks explained:
We took all 141 of those cases to a grand jury this morning. Because the judge’s ruling was limited to the complaint affidavit in front of him, it allowed us to take the broader case to the grand jury.
We presented the case as a whole. We presented videotape evidence of what happened. The grand jurors believed there was, in fact, probable cause. The citizens of El Paso, through the grand jury, essentially overruled the judge’s ruling and found probable cause to believe that the riots did occur.
Traditionally, we reserve the grand jury for felony indictment, and we don’t take misdemeanors to a grand jury. However, when there is a question regarding probable cause, I believe it is fair to take these cases to 12 citizens of our community.
El Paso County Public Defender Kelli Childress, who is defending the illegals against criminal prosecution, condemned the indictment and called it a violation of their human rights:
We pretty much predicted that was their plan, which is why we sought a probable cause hearing in advance of today’s grand jury. I can’t say we didn’t know it was coming. We didn’t know exactly when. Knowing that it was coming doesn’t at all ease the fact that I think it is a horrible move. I think it is a blatant violation of constitutional rights and human rights.
I find it pretty amazing that they were able to indict 140 misdemeanor cases basically overnight, yet I have hundreds and hundreds of felony cases waiting to be charged for more than a year. They can claim all they want that this isn’t about politics and it’s not about immigration laws, but their actions scream otherwise.
This is not the first time that an El Paso judge has sided with illegal aliens over the rule of law.
Last month, El Paso Magistrate Judge Humberto Acosta ordered the release of dozens of migrants who engaged in a violent encounter with National Guard troops along the Rio Grande as they attempted to enter into the country illegally.
The post El Paso DA Indicts 140 Illegal Aliens on Rioting Charges After Leftist County Judge Dismissed Their Case appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has appeared to wish death on Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy.
The failed presidential candidate spoke at an event on Tuesday at the University of Chicago titled ‘Does the Truth Still Matter? In Conversation With Chris Christie.’
“I would have preferred any of those people over Trump,” Christie said when asked about other Republican candidates. “Ramaswamy and Trump, I would have hoped for a death match where they both die.”
The comments led to awkward laughs from the audience, while the moderator asked him whether he meant “a literal death match.”
“Yes,” Christie responded, “Where they both die.”
Watch the exchange below:
Chris Christie: “I would have preferred any of those people over Trump. Ramaswamy and Trump I would have hoped for a death match. Where they both die.”
The applause break from the ‘progressive crowd’ was a nice touch of irony. pic.twitter.com/gkijE5ER54— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) April 24, 2024
Having been a vocal supporter of Trump in 2016 and interviewing for a position as his chief of staff, Christie has viciously turned his back on both the former president and the MAGA movement.
He recently flirted with the prospect of running as an independent but has since closed the door on the idea on the grounds that there is no chance he could win.
“I appreciate the encouragement I’ve gotten to pursue a third-party candidacy,” Christie said last month. “While I believe this is a conversation that needs to be had with the American people, I also believe that if there is not a pathway to win and if my candidacy in any way, shape or form would help Donald Trump become president again, then it is not the way forward.”
The post ‘Where They Both Die’: Nasty Chris Christie Wishes Death on Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Weissmann said Wednesday on MSNBC's "The ReidOut" that Donald Trump's former Attorney Kenneth Chesebro is likely cooperating with the Arizona prosecutors who indicted 17 individuals in an election case.
The post Weissmann: Arizona Indictments Mean Kenneth Chesebro Likely Cooperating appeared first on Breitbart.
Drudge Report Feed needs your support! Become a Patron
Article tags
Drudge Report Feed needs your support! Become a Patron
Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, RNC attorney Christina Bobb, conservative attorney John Eastman, and Trump campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn are among the eighteen individuals indicted by an Arizona grand jury in the latest election interference witch hunt against President Trump and his allies.
President Trump was named “Unindicted Coconspirator-1” in the indictment because he made a phone call about the ballot counting to former governor Doug Ducey.
The charges include nine counts of conspiracy, fraudulent schemes and artifices, fraudulent schemes and practices, and forgery. “Defendants and unindicted coconspirators schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency to keep Unindicted Coconspirator 1 in office against the will of Arizona’s voters,” The indictment alleges.
The indictment further states, “Defendants deceived the citizens of Arizona by falsely claiming that those votes were contingent only on a legal challenge that would change the outcome of the election. In reality, Defendants intended that their false votes for Trump-Pence would encourage Pence to reject the Biden-Harris votes on January 6, 2021, regardless of the outcome of the legal challenge. When combined with the six other States where Republican electors sent in uncertified votes for Trump-Pence, Defendants wanted Pence to either declare Unindicted Coconspirator 1 the winner of the election, delay the proceeding and have individual state legislatures determine their electors, or have Congress resolve any claimed uncertainty about the validity of election results in Arizona and six other states in Unindicted Coconspirator 1’s favor.”
However, this is perfectly legal conduct and there is a legal precedent for this so-called deception:
Per Politico:
By December 1960, it was clear Kennedy had won. Only Hawaii’s result remained in doubt. Nixon had prevailed by just 140 votes, according to the initial results, which were certified by the governor. A recount was underway on Dec. 19, 1960, when presidential electors across the nation were required by law to meet and cast their ballots.
Nixon’s Hawaii electors met and cast their three votes in an official ceremony. But nearby, Kennedy’s three elector nominees gathered and signed their own certificates, delivering them to Washington as though Kennedy had won the state.
The Gateway Pundit reported on the indictment yesterday.
Arizona’s radical left Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes, who stole her election from Abe Hamadeh by 280 votes, announced the charges on Wednesday afternoon. She defended her witch hunt and the curious timing of the indictment – just months before the 2024 general election. Make no mistake, the charges are a warning shot to anyone who may want to challenge the 2024 election.
Democrat prosecutors in other states are also targeting Trump’s alternate electors.
In July, Democrat Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel criminally charged 16 dueling ‘Trump electors’ in the state’s 2020 election.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis recently indicted three of Trump’s alternate electors in Georgia as part of her RICO and conspiracy case against Trump.
Five of the individuals indicted in Georgia were also indicted in Arizona.
The 18 Defendants facing felony charges in Arizona include:
Per the Washington Post, attorneys and spokespersons for Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and Kelli Ward responded to a request for comment:
Meadows lawyer George Terwilliger said Wednesday he had not yet seen the indictment when a Post reporter called him. After reviewing the indictment, he said: “If Mr. Meadows is named in this indictment, it is a blatantly political and politicized accusation and will be contested and defeated.”
“The continued weaponization of our justice system should concern every American, as it does permanent, irrevocable harm to the country,” Ted Goodman, a spokesman for Giuliani, said in response to the indictment.
“The phenomenon of partisan lawfare grows more troubling by the day,” Charles Burnham, an attorney for Eastman, said in an email responding to the Arizona charges. “Professor Eastman is innocent of criminal conduct in Arizona or any other place and will fight these charges as he has all the other unjust accusations leveled against him.”
A lawyer representing Ward and most of the other Trump electors said: “We are certainly disappointed in today’s developments and are confident that these charges are unwarranted."
The Gateway Pundit will continue to provide updates on the Arizona election interference indictment.
The post FULL LIST: Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Christina Bobb, John Eastman Among Those Charged in Democrat Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ Witch Hunt Grand Jury Indictment appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction was overturned by the New York Appeals Court on Thursday.
The disgraced Hollywood mogul was convicted of sexual assault and rape in 2020 during the height of the #MeToo movement.
Weinstein was also found guilty of rape in a Los Angeles sexual assault trial in 2022.
A panel of mostly female judges in New York’s high court overturned the conviction and said the remedy is a new trial.
“We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes,” the court’s 4-3 decision said, according to AP. “The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”
The AP reported:
New York’s highest court on Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction, finding the judge at the landmark #MeToo trial prejudiced the ex-movie mogul with “egregious” improper rulings, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case.
The court’s majority said “it is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.”
In a stinging dissent, Judge Madeline Singas wrote that the majority was “whitewashing the facts to conform to a he-said/she-said narrative,” and said the Court of Appeals was continuing a “disturbing trend of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence.”
“The majority’s determination perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability,” Singas wrote.
DEVELOPING…
The post DEVELOPING: Harvey Weinstein Rape Conviction Overturned By New York Appellate Court – By a Panel of Female Judges! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Hedge fund mogul Bill Ackman has publicly announced that he is considering voting for President Donald Trump in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.
Ackman, the CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, has been vocal in his disgust of what is happening on college campuses across the county as students rally to support Hamas, a terrorist organization, particularly at Harvard University.
Ackman’s political views have been significantly shaped by his interactions on Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, where he actively participates in discussions.
He credits these exchanges with providing him insights that are often overlooked by mainstream media.
During a conversation at the TED 2024 conference in Vancouver, Ackman spoke passionately about the importance of free speech and open debate. He highlighted the social media platform X, owned by tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, as a pivotal space where these values are upheld.
“I’m a big fan of X. I think it really is an open free speech platform,” Ackman said per QZ. “I’ve learned a lot, and it’s affected my views, my politics, my insights. And I think it’s one of the few places you can go and have a true free speech platform.”
On Wednesday, Ackman posted a blunt statement on X, saying, “For anyone who is still confused on the topic, I am not voting for Biden.”
For anyone who is still confused on the topic, I am not voting for Biden.
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 25, 2024
A curious user on X asked Ackman, “First time not voting Democrat in your life? Have you ever voted Republican, Bill Ackman? For all of us confused folk.”
Ackman responded, confirming his past voting behavior: “Yes. I voted for Donald Trump in 2016.”
Yes. I voted for @realDonaldTrump in 2016.
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 25, 2024
He added that he had switched his vote to Biden in the 2020 election.
Biden
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 25, 2024
When journalist Laura Loomer asked him when he is going to endorse President Trump, Ackman responded, “And yes, I am open to voting for Donald Trump.”
And yes, I am open to voting for @realDonaldTrump.
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 25, 2024
He further noted that he prefers to keep his options open, saying, “I will share whom I am supporting when I make my decision closer to the election. I like to preserve optionality.”
I will share whom I am supporting when I make my decision closer to the election. I like to preserve optionality.
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 25, 2024
The post Billionaire Hedge Fund Manager Bill Ackman Says He is Open to Voting for Trump in 2024 Presidential Election appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
In his latest episode, Uncensored: Systemic Racism Against White Americans, Tucker Carlson asks, “There is systemic racism in the United States against whites. Everyone knows it. Nobody says it. How come?”
Jeremy Carl, author of The Unprotected Class, How anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart joined him to discuss the issue.
Tucker Carlson: If somehow you were able to be airlifted directly or teleported directly from 1994 to 2024, you’d notice an awful lot of changes. Primary among them would be the internet. But the biggest change you’d probably notice about our public conversation is how white people were so openly attacked and denigrated. Yes, a racial group. So in 1994, you were about 30 years past the civil rights movement. And in 1994, the operating assumption of virtually everyone in the United States was the main lesson of the civil rights movement. Of the letter from the Birmingham Jail on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and all the different sacred moments that we grew up hearing about.
The main lesson of those moments was it is immoral, in fact, unacceptable to attack people on the basis of their race.
So then, if you fast forward 30 years to find the same country engaged in a public hate frenzy against people because of their race, you would find that bewildering. How did this happen? Of course, there would be the discrimination, the institutional racism of hurting people on the basis of their race in hiring, in admissions to schools, in federal contracting, in promotions, there would be all of that.
But there would also be the public manifestation of it, of saying out loud, “We just don’t like you. You’re not as good. You are morally defective because of your skin color.” You say this about white people, people who founded the United States. You’d be shocked by that. And then to turn on the TV and see the President of the United States do the very same thing. You’d think maybe you’d been drinking ayahuasca. You’d see Joe Biden say things like this:
Biden Soundbites:” History has thrust one more urgent task on us. Will we be the generation that finally wipes out the stain of racism from our national character? We’ve all seen the injustice on the neck of Black Americans. Racism, nativism, fear, demonization, have long torn us apart.
“But a black parent, no matter how wealthy or how poor they are, has to teach their child. When you’re walking down the street, don’t have a hoodie on when you go across the street.”
“Domestic terrorism from white supremacists is the most lethal terrorist threat in the homeland.”
News Soundbite: If I were your daughter, what advice would you give me the next time I am stopped by the police?
Biden Soundbite: If you’re my daughter, you’d be a Caucasian girl and you wouldn’t be pulled over.
Carlson: White supremacy is the most lethal threat to the United States. White people are the threat. They are evil and they are dangerous. That’s not just a senile President making that one statement. That is the people in charge of the country reinforcing that statement and that theme every single day of the year, not just by their words, but with their deeds.
What is this? Why does no one mention it’s happening? Why does anyone who does mention it’s happening get attacked as a white supremacist for complaining about racism? And maybe more important, where does it go? Is there any other ending to the story but hurting people physically, lots of people? Could we have a resolution that doesn’t look like Rwanda? J
Jeremy Carl is an author who’s thought a lot about this. He’s got a brand new book called The Unprotected Class, How anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart.
He joins us now. Jeremy, thanks so much for coming on. It may be a an advantage or maybe disadvantage of being a little bit older that it’s this is like the one thing you never thought or I never thought you would see in America, which is our leaders openly attacking people on the basis of their race. Just 60 years after the civil rights movement that supposedly taught us the opposite lesson in the Civil Rights Act. So how did this happen, do you think?
Jeremy Carl: Well, it’s an interesting question, right. And I think you just hit on a key point, which is 60 years. We are as far now from the Civil Rights Act as they were basically from the Wright brothers. So there’s been a lot of time that’s kind of, a lot of water under the bridge since that time. And a lot of things have happened. And I think it was begun with very sincere intentions, but I think rather quickly, certainly, you know, 10, 20, 30 years down the line, it got really hijacked to the point that we went from trying to treat people equally to what has eventually amounted to reverse racism.
Carlson: Right? Or just I guess I would just call it racism, because it seems like the standard would remain the same. No matter the race of the person being discriminated against. You can’t attack people. You can’t punish people for the color of their skin for how they were born. So like that seems like a pretty easy principle to uphold, is pretty straightforward.
Carl: Well, I would agree with you, Tucker, but it’s, you know, nonetheless, we’re really seeing throughout, and this is what I really wrote the book about, throughout many different areas of endeavor, and whether that be when we’re looking at how, crime gets talked about to what’s going on in Hollywood, to the educational system and monuments coming down and everything you could imagine, kind of the white person is kind of the great enemy. It’s the, the kind of, the evil guy in 1984, the kind of two minutes of hate we have to have against him. The Emanuel Goldstein figure, kind of is the white person in particularly the Democratic Party’s discourse today.
Carlson: What’s interesting, though, is it typically when you see these moments of scapegoating, which are clearly, you know, kind of inherent to people, I mean, they pop up in every society at every time through history, like there’s something in people that wants to separate a small group and like, blame all its problems in that group. But it’s usually it’s the minority. Of course, you know, the persecuted minority, whites are still, for at least as of today, probably change soon, of course, but they are still the majority in the country. So like, have you ever seen anything like that happen?
Carl: You know, I haven’t Tucker. It’s it’s kind of amazing to watch because this is whites are still a 58% majority. It’s no longer a majority of the under 18, but of adults it’s still a solid majority. It’s a super majority of our voters, still, in every presidential election, although just barely in the last presidential election. And yet they’ve become this figure of hate. And it’s really been kind of fascinating and disturbing to watch and to kind of think about why that happened.
And one of the things I suggest in my book is that really, ultimately, this is a legitimizing ideology for ultimately resource transfer and resource confiscation. And that takes, the form of some of this reparations conversation or land back or some of these other things, and they sort of start out on the extreme left and everybody goes, oh, well, that’s silly. That’s never going to happen. And then all of a sudden, you know, it is happening and you’re a racist if you think it’s a bad idea.
Carlson: Yeah. I mean, of course it’s happened and it’s still happening in other countries. You know, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and the whites were killed and their land was taken and their money stolen. And it’s happening in South Africa right now. Of course, we’re not supposed to look at it, but it is happening, actually. I wonder why people are, why the majority is putting up with it?
Carl: Well, that’s a good question, Tucker and I, I can’t even fully I don’t have the perfect answer for that myself. And ultimately, I one of the main reasons I wrote this book is because I don’t think the majority, I don’t think anybody should be putting up with it, regardless of race. I mean, we shouldn’t have, we shouldn’t be putting up with racial discrimination in our society in 2024.
But I think, you know, kind of white people, they’re almost it’s like a Stockholm syndrome, almost where they’re they’re like in a hostage mode in terms of some of the ways that they’re thinking where they they sort of are in love with their captors. And they’re not able to kind of accept what’s going on, and particularly on the left, it’s this sort of notion that, because we, of course, like every nation, have had an imperfect past, that white people have some hereditary blood guilt. And I think the balance of American history just shows that that’s a really myopic and childish way to look at our history in our country.
Carlson: Well, it’s demonstrably absurd if America is so racist, if systemic racism is such a barrier, then why are nonwhite people moving here by the millions. So obviously that’s silly, but it’s a little weird to say that, you know, you hate whites, but you need to live in a country founded by whites who systems are Anglo systems like that. I mean, maybe I’m being too logical here, but it doesn’t make any sense.
Carl: No, it doesn’t. And I mean it sort of. It points to some of the absurdity here. And you also touched that. Of course, people from all sorts of different backgrounds are clamoring at the door. We’re right now dealing with this, of course, with illegal immigration. And even if you look at some of these groups and again, something I discuss in the book, there are all sorts of nonwhite ethnicities in this country among immigrants and among citizens, in which, particularly among Asian American groups, but not exclusively. I mean, if you were to even look at Nigerian Americans, or particularly Igbo Americans, for example, they would have an average, higher, income than the average white American. And so this kind of notion that whites are sort of on the top is really a selective editing of any story, no matter how true that belies that or any statistics that belie that. It’s one of the reasons you actually see Asian Americans frequently eliminated from these comparison sets when they’re talked about, because it doesn’t tell the story that, the left wants to tell.
Watch the full interview:
Ep. 98 There is systemic racism in the United States, against whites. Everyone knows it. Nobody says it. How come? pic.twitter.com/hSrU9BPVb4
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) April 24, 2024
The post Tucker Carlson: There Is Systemic Racism in the U.S. – Against Whites! (Video) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Between judicially disqualifying conflicts of interests to overbroad gag orders that outrageously violate President Trump’s First Amendment rights as a criminal defendant, the President’s lawyers have multiple grounds on which to appeal this present show trial, which makes a mockery of the rule of law currently underway in lower Manhattan. One would have to scour the annals of American legal history to find another case quite like the one brought by Alvin Bragg and aided and abetted by Matthew Colangelo, a former top-level official of Joe Biden’s Justice Department, and prosecuted with inglorious vengeance by the highly conflicted Judge Merchan. The fact that Bragg’s kangaroo show trial is being prosecuted against Donald Trump at all, shamelessly denying him the respect and decorum the office of the President deserves, even in the courtroom, is bad enough. But that it is being waged against the leading candidate, by most leading polls, to become the 47th President of the United States, and leader of the free world, is many steps beyond the pale. Worse yet, that leading candidate has been so unceremoniously stripped of the traditional formalities of the presidential office – a laundry list of indiscretions that includes proper respect in the courtroom, protection of his fundamental due process rights, the right to speak and protest the trial proceeding where necessary. These indiscretions collectively prove that Judge Merchan condemned President Trump before his trial has even really commenced, depriving him of the most important pillar of the Anglo-American legal system: the presumption of innocence.
On these grounds, President Trump’s attorneys must request intervention by a higher tribunal, to either stay the proceeding, or better yet, put an end to this sham kangaroo trial that epitomizes what so many Americans realize as clear as day: a flagrant case of election interference.
The judicial system fortunately provides the defendant tools to appeal an utterly conflicted and corrupt proceeding. All President Trump’s attorneys would need to do is file a motion with the court requesting the judge recuse himself. If the judge refuses to recuse himself, despite being so troublingly conflicted, President Trump’s attorneys will then have the option to appeal the order the court must thereupon issue.
There are several ways to appeal a court order of this kind. The first, more conservative approach, would be a kind of collateral attack on the proceeding – which challenges the case on grounds other than the underlying merits of the claim – through what is called an Article 78 filing under New York law. In New York, lawyers have the option to appeal via an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the conduct of judges, including state criminal court judges whose offices are created by statute. There are two reasons why an Article 78 appeal might be easier, and more advisable, than a direct interlocutory appeal to federal court. The first reason is that Article 78 appeals would help streamline the process, given that President Trump’s case was brought in state court already, where such appeals are commonplace. It is much more complicated to appeal a criminal case, especially one implicating the thorny and often confused legal issues controlling the proceeding here, to federal court than by way of an Article 78 proceeding, which arises under state law and is thereby governed by much similar rules and principles than those which govern federal court.
The second, perhaps even more compelling, reason favoring an Article 78 appeal, rather than an appeal to federal court, is that under the New York State Constitution, parties have even more expansive First Amendment rights than those that would typically arise under the First Amendment. In the seminal 1988 decision, O’Neill v Oakgrove Construction, the Second Appellate Division of New York held that the “protection afforded by the guarantees of free press and speech in the New York State Constitution is often broader than the minimum required by [the Federal Constitution].” Thus, if the gag order serves as the basis for the Article 78 collateral attack, at least on paper, President Trump has reason to be optimistic because of how speech rights are traditionally protected in New York State, which heavily disfavors any infringements whatever on speech – more so than what would give rise to a valid challenge under First Amendment grounds alone.
Accordingly, President Trump’s lawyers have strong grounds to make an Article 78 appeal on the basis of the unconstitutional scope of the gag order that Judge Merchan arbitrarily imposed upon him, which fails to meet normal strict scrutiny analysis under federal law, as I have previously detailed at length. Therefore, if the gag order fails to pass muster under the Supreme Court’s own precedent from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which governs when courts may prohibit speech in exceptional cases, surely the gag order here would likewise fail to meet the even more rigorous standard for speech prohibitions that arise under New York State’s Constitution.
Another issue that might be included in an Article 78 appeal is the issue of judicial misconduct: in other words, the conflict of interest serving as the basis for the appeal. Again, New York law is arguably more rigorous than federal law on this issue. Under New York law, “[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned…”. An important ground for dismissal is when “the judge knows that the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person … has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.”
One such interest that can be substantially affected by the proceeding is an economic interest. Namely, the economic interest of Loren Merchan, Judge Merchan’s daughter, who happens to fall “within the sixth degree of relationship” stipulated under the rule. As exhaustively discussed elsewhere, Loren Merchan works as a senior officer and fundraiser for a political consulting firm, Authentic Campaigns, whose “featured clients” include none other than the Biden-Harris campaign and various far-left lawmakers, including Adam Schiff and Kathy Hochul, with interests that would, to say the least, create a strong impression of impropriety that severely undermines Judge Merchan’s ability to rule fairly and impartially. Moreover, as also reported previously, Judge Merchan’s own wife allegedly works for Attorney General Letitia James’ office, who campaigned on “getting” President Trump and whose office put strong political pressures on both Merchan and Bragg to prosecute the 45th President in this criminal trial – to say nothing of presiding over President Trump’s concurrent civil cases taking place in New York State. Furthermore, reputable sources have reported that Loren Merchan’s firm profited, to the tune of at least $93 million, off the political persecution of Donald Trump happening in lower Manhattan.
Under the federal canons of judicial conduct, a judge must recuse himself whenever the judge, his spouse, or a relative “within the third degree of relationship” of the judge is “a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.” Reading these two rules together, it is notable, first, that the state ethics code encompasses relatives to “the sixth degree of relationship,” giving strong reason to believe that, much like speech law, the standard for impropriety under New York State laws governing judicial misconduct is even more rigorous than federal law.
Second, a daughter presiding over a business that raises tens of millions of dollars for political candidates and campaigns, and stands to – with very good reason – earn a windfall if her father happens to prosecute and convict the man poised to be her firm’s client’s political opponent in the upcoming presidential race, would, I conjecture, qualify as an example (if not textbook example) of “more than a de minimis interest in the case.” Ditto too is Judge Merchan’s wife, Lara Merchan, if the reports alleging an employment connection, as special assistant to Letitia James, between her and Letitia James’ office prove true, given how much James’ political career rests on “getting” President Trump, which she irrefutably made the central issue of her statewide race for Attorney General, and short-lived race for Governor.
Beyond these damning revelations, the fact that Judge Merchan himself is a noted and long-term donor – directly via donations, and indirectly via PAC monetary contributions – and friend of Joe Biden should, even if the facts brought about the daughter and wife did not come to light, alone be sufficient grounds for a recusal. In a case involving a presidential candidate taking place just months before Election Day, politics are necessarily all-controlling. There is no getting around it. Hence, to any reasonable observer, the courtroom drama in lower Manhattan cannot be understood other than as a brazen act of election interference by the incumbent president in Biden against his likeliest successor in Trump.
Otherwise, what else explains the seven-plus years of delays in which this case was kicked down the road from the DOJ to the FEC to Bragg’s office, not once, but twice, only to finally be prosecuted at a politically convenient hour: the moment when Donald Trump became, for the third time in as many cycles, the presumptive Republican nominee. There were also various changes in the law (all of which in hindsight look like strategic meddling by Democrats in the New York state legislature making preparations to jury-rig the legal system in advance to prosecute Donald Trump) made over the years. These include a change in the statute of limitations that allowed Bragg to prosecute this case well beyond the original limitations period. In addition, there was a 2018 change in tax law that made hush money write-offs for sexual indiscretions unlawful.
To date, not one of Merchan, Bragg, Colangelo, James, or Biden’s DOJ could explain why it is imperative to commence a six-week trial right here and now, rather than postpone it – for just another seven months – until after election day. To channel our eloquent Commander-in-Chief: For God’s sake it’s been seven years already, what the hell is another seven months going to make a difference! The choice to prosecute President Trump now, perhaps at the summit of his political clout, where most reputable polls have him trouncing Biden in the upcoming general election, just reeks of improprieties – and indeed, election interference – of the worst possible variety.
Separately from the Article 78 proceeding, President Trump’s lawyers also have the option of making an interlocutory appeal directly to federal court – either to the Second Circuit or, better, Supreme Court. Under well-settled federal law, the Supreme Court has permitted interlocutory appeals from state to federal court, in the decision Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser (1989), if the appeal satisfies the three-prong test of what the High Court called “the collateral order doctrine.”
The collateral order doctrine says that appeals are permitted as long as the following elements are met:
1. The outcome of the case would be conclusively determined by the issue;
2. The matter appealed was collateral on the merits;
3. The matter was effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal were not allowed.
In President Trump’s criminal proceeding, all three elements are easily met. The matter appealed – the recusal order – would conclusively determine the outcome of the case because if the Judge is found conflicted under New York or ABA canons regulating judicial ethics, there would be strong grounds for a mistrial. Even if President Trump’s attorneys appealed just on the gag order issue, that still would likely satisfy the collateral order doctrine – because President Trump’s ability to speak about, and expose, the conflicts of interest implicating Judge Merchan and his family would reveal a disqualifying economic interest in the case that goes directly to the reason why it was brought in the first place. If it can be shown that Judge Merchan had a judicially disqualifying economic stake in the case, which should be easy here because he incontestably does, the entire case would have to be dismissed on grounds of unfair prejudice to the defendant and his constitutional rights. Indeed, there is strong reason to believe that there would be no case without Judge Merchan – in other words, a recusal alone would not mitigate the prejudice to President Trump here, because that prejudice runs to the heart of the proceeding itself, regardless of the identity of the judge presiding over the case.
At the bare minimum, however, the judge’s myriad conflicts of interest serve as more than sufficient grounds for an order for recusal – there is absolutely no way President Trump’s due process rights can be guaranteed so long as Judge Merchan remains on the case. If a recusal order is successfully appealed, given how damaging Judge Merchan’s conflict was in the case at bar, the court will likely have to stay this proceeding until after the election, in order to avoid a repeat of the same dangers here that severely harmed President Trump’s fundamental rights – which stand as a grievous indictment of New York’s judicial system.
The other two elements are also easily met. The matter appealed, whether on the gag order or recusal issue, is collateral to the merits of the underlying legal claim: which involves an alleged fraudulent business records scheme. What is more, if Judge Merchan is not recused, the matter cannot be reviewed unless on appeal. Put differently, the only way President Trump can request relief here is by appealing any ruling Judge Merchan might issue on a recusal order. Given the probability that Judge Merchan will deny any order filed by his attorneys for his recusal, there will be a basis for an interlocutory appeal to either state or federal court.
Why else might a direct interlocutory appeal to federal court, rather than to state court via the aforementioned Article 78 proceeding, be more desirable? Well, for one thing: the legal basis for it should not be that hard given that federal questions run amok all throughout this case. Whether dealing with President Trump’s First Amendment rights, or denial of his due process rights – or even the alleged FEC violations at issue here – there are more than sufficient grounds, as a matter of procedure, to kick this case into federal court for appeal. Of course, federal crimes require federal jurisdiction: but there are likely jurisprudential grounds, not the least of which has to do with the issues controlling here, especially with the FEC, that implicate the interstate commerce clause, that would create the nexus to make the underlying issue a federal question.
I mean, this is the President of the United States, we are talking about, who also happens to be an out-of-state resident! So, the question to be raised: why is this a state court matter at all seems so obvious – and yet has bizarrely not been talked about enough, despite being a central and unaddressed issue, either by the legal pundits or the prosecution.
Bragg has hidden the ball so much with regard to his theory of criminal liability here, which can only be attributed to one of two reasons: 1) he has no basis for bringing this case in state court because has no idea what on earth he is doing, or 2) he realizes that to the extent a crime is ascertainable at all amid Bragg’s legal muddying of the waters, it is emphatically one that warrants prosecution in federal court, not state court, ergo explaining the lack of transparency on his end. Given the fact that Bragg is so heavily relying on a federal prosecutor from Biden’s DOJ, Matthew Colangelo, to help him contrive a theory of criminal liability here, is all the more reason to believe that this matter belongs in federal court, not state court.
That being said, I discussed advantages for collaterally attacking this matter via an Article 78 proceeding rather than making a direct interlocutory appeal to federal court. The first reason is that Article 78 proceedings might be easier: similar rules and legal principles would apply for both the criminal proceeding and Article 78 appeal. The second reason is that New York State Law, at least in theory, is even more protective of both President Trump’s speech rights and offers an even more rigorous standard for judicial ethics than what is observed by the ABA.
But the advantages to a state court proceeding should be placed alongside the advantages of a direct interlocutory appeal to federal court. These advantages may be described as follows: 1) even though state law is supposed to apply more generous speech protections, considering the current cast of characters in charge of New York’s law enforcement – from Hochul to James to Bragg to Merchan – it is improbable that President Trump’s state constitutional rights would be adequately protected. It would thus be incumbent upon federal actors, either judges or prosecutors, to apply New York law faithfully – or, in the alternative, use the federal standard to exonerate President Trump from the endless indignities of New York’s corrupted judicial system. 2) The second reason favoring federal appeal is that federal courts – and the Supreme Court, above all – has the greatest means to establish a national standard for the ongoing criminal (and potential other) proceedings against President Trump.
Now that Donald Trump is officially the presumptive Republican nominee, it would be much easier for the Supreme Court to simply issue a stay on all proceedings against him until after November 5th. That, the Highest Court of the Land has the power to do – and should do, if it truly cares about the rule of law, the protection of individual rights, and safeguarding the republic from nefarious and gratuitous political prosecutions, particularly during a hotly contested election year. An emergency interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court would be the best way to preserve our democracy from the subversive forces, acting at the behest of Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice, working actively to expel President Trump from the political arena. Granted, it may be a difficult feat to pull off, given all the time constraints and political hurdles, but President Trump’s attorneys should treat the persecution against him as a serious act of legal warfare, one that must be responded to in kind – using every tool in the arsenal – or risk defeat by our enemies, hellbent on bringing down the remaining morsels of the American republic for all time.
The post Alvin Bragg’s Legal Assault On President Trump Is Lawfare Of The Worst Kind: Strategizing A Legal Counterattack appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
A Jewish woman was reportedly kidnapped and threatened with being sex trafficked or killed by a man promising to "avenge Palestine".
The post France: Man Vowing to ‘Avenge Palestine’ Kidnaps Jewish Woman, Threatens Her with Sex Slavery, Death appeared first on Breitbart.
Gold prices are experiencing an upward trend, and there are several factors contributing to this rise. Understanding these factors can help investors decide whether Gold is a suitable investment for their portfolio.
The post Why Is Gold Up 12.5% for 2024, and Should I Invest? appeared first on Breitbart.
HOUSTON — A judge has declined to dismiss hundreds of lawsuits filed against rap star Travis Scott over his role in the deadly 2021 Astroworld festival in which 10 people were killed in a crowd surge.
The post Judge Won’t Dismiss Hundreds of Lawsuits Against Travis Scott over Deadly Astroworld Festival appeared first on Breitbart.
Former President Donald Trump said sarcastically he will remove "lethargic" for the list of insults of former Attorney General Bill Barr, after his "wholehearted endorsement."
The post Trump Says He Will Stop Calling Bill Barr ‘Lethargic’ After His ‘Wholehearted Endorsement’ appeared first on Breitbart.
The blades of the Moulin Rouge windmill, one of the most famous landmarks in Paris, collapsed during the night, firefighters said.
The post Can-Can’t! Pictures: Windmill Sails of World-Famous Paris Landmark Moulin Rouge Collapse Overnight appeared first on Breitbart.
On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Professor of the Practice of Economic Policy at Harvard University and the Harvard Kennedy School Jason Furman, who served as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama and on the
The post Fmr. Obama Adviser: The Goal of Biden Loan Plan Will Increase Interest Rates, Inflation, Mortgage Rates appeared first on Breitbart.
On Wednesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Jesse Watters Primetime,” House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) stated that Columbia University and other schools that “are engaging in this kind of nonsense” similar to what’s happening at Columbia do not
The post Speaker Johnson: Columbia Shouldn’t Get Taxpayer Dollars appeared first on Breitbart.
Anti-Israel protesters invaded Harvard Yard on Wednesday, the second day of Passover, setting up an encampment and chanting "intifada revolution," provoking an angry response from Jewish leaders concerned for student safety.
The post Harvard Yard Invaded by Anti-Israel Encampment; ‘Intifada Revolution’ appeared first on Breitbart.
Article tags
Drudge Report Feed needs your support! Become a Patron
Vaunce News