Login
Another city bans free speech. Chilling. Read this.
Related:
Seattle Imposes Ad Ban to Annul Pamela Geller’s Free Speech Lawsuit Victory
Officials who oversee Seattle’s transit system moved to ban political, religious, and other ads from its facilities and public transportation vehicles soon after Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) prevailed in a freedom of speech lawsuit against the city, earning the right to run FBI’s Most Wanted terrorist posters, Breitbart News has learned.
By: Edwin Mora, Breitbart, April 16, 2019:
“People should realize that this is a struggle for the very foundation of any free society: the freedom of speech. If there is a group you can’t criticize, then that group can impose tyranny over you. If we lose this free speech battle, all our other freedoms are lost” Geller recently told Breitbart News via email.
She argued the advertisement ban sidestepped the September 2018 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in AFDI’s favor, which allowed the group to advertise the Most Wanted terrorist list in Seattle.
However, the new restrictions, dubbed the “Geller ban” and instituted in December 2018 by the King County Department of Transportation’s Transit Division that oversees Seattle’s public transportation system, have ended up preventing AFDI from running the terrorist wanted ads, Geller pointed out, noting that her free speech lawsuit victory was bittersweet.
Before the appeal court’s ruling, judges had denied AFDI the right to place public service ads featuring images of the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists on Seattle’s public transportation system, due to a perceived disparagement of Islam.
The city’s rejection prompted AFDI to sue the King County Metro system for its suppression of free speech.
“We won the right to run the FBI wanted terrorist poster that Seattle prevailed upon the FBI to withdraw [ in 2013]. And as soon as we triumphed, Seattle transit imposed the infamous Geller ban, banning political, religious and cause-related ads in Seattle (following NY, Washington DC, Boston, Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, etc),” Geller told Breitbart News in the email.
In a document outlining the transit agency’s advertising restrictions, King County officials noted that the policy bans advertising on transit facilities and vehicles that fall within the categories of political, religious, government (except for the county’s), and other forms of “speech.”
“They banned all political ads, as that was the only course of action they could possibly take in order to continue to avoid running my ads,” Geller said. “They’re so determined to continue whitewashing Islam and denying and obfuscating the roots of jihad terror that they are willing to lose immense amounts of revenue from all political advertising.”
Transit agency officials argued that their “viewpoint neutral” ban seeks to prohibit “advertisements that interfere with and divert resources from transit operations, that detract from transit purposes by creating substantial controversy, and/or that pose significant risks of harm, inconvenience, or annoyance to transit passengers, operators, and vehicles.”
“Such advertisements create an environment that is not conducive to achieving increased revenue for the benefit of the transit system or to preserving and enhancing the security, safety, comfort, and convenience of its operations,” the officials added.
Responding to the agency’s argument Geller noted, “I see ads that annoy me all the time. If that is the criterion [for the ban], whose annoyance counts, and whose doesn’t, and why?”
She told Breitbart News that King County’s decision to ban FBI wanted posters featuring some jihadis amounts to the “enforcement of Sharia blasphemy law in another American city.”
King County officials described the transit agency’s advertising ban as“restrictions” that “foster the maintenance of a professional advertising environment that maximizes advertising, revenue, and protects the interests of the captive audience that uses Metro’s transit services.”
In other words, the county’s transportation department believes that banning certain ads will allow the county to generate more revenue.
“The ban will, obviously, drastically curtail their ad revenues. To argue otherwise is plain deception” Geller noted.
Nevertheless, the county asserted that the advertising policy intends to fulfill the following goals:
Maximizing advertising revenue; maintaining a position of neutrality and preventing the appearance of favoritism or endorsement by the county; preventing the risk of imposing objectionable, inappropriate or harmful view on a captive audience; preserving the value of the advertising space; maximizing ridership and maintaining a safe environment for transit customers and other members of the public; avoiding claims of discrimination and maintaining a non-discriminatory environment for riders; preventing any harm or abuse that may result from running objectionable, inappropriate, or harmful advertisements; [and] reducing the diversion of resources from transit operations that is caused by objectionable, inappropriate or harmful advertisements.
Geller vowed to keep fighting for free speech all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary to ensure Seattle upholds the appeal court’s ruling.
Another city bans free speech. Chilling. Read this.
Related:
Seattle Imposes Ad Ban to Annul Pamela Geller’s Free Speech Lawsuit Victory
Officials who oversee Seattle’s transit system moved to ban political, religious, and other ads from its facilities and public transportation vehicles soon after Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) prevailed in a freedom of speech lawsuit against the city, earning the right to run FBI’s Most Wanted terrorist posters, Breitbart News has learned.
By: Edwin Mora, Breitbart, April 16, 2019:
“People should realize that this is a struggle for the very foundation of any free society: the freedom of speech. If there is a group you can’t criticize, then that group can impose tyranny over you. If we lose this free speech battle, all our other freedoms are lost” Geller recently told Breitbart News via email.
She argued the advertisement ban sidestepped the September 2018 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in AFDI’s favor, which allowed the group to advertise the Most Wanted terrorist list in Seattle.
However, the new restrictions, dubbed the “Geller ban” and instituted in December 2018 by the King County Department of Transportation’s Transit Division that oversees Seattle’s public transportation system, have ended up preventing AFDI from running the terrorist wanted ads, Geller pointed out, noting that her free speech lawsuit victory was bittersweet.
Before the appeal court’s ruling, judges had denied AFDI the right to place public service ads featuring images of the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists on Seattle’s public transportation system, due to a perceived disparagement of Islam.
The city’s rejection prompted AFDI to sue the King County Metro system for its suppression of free speech.
“We won the right to run the FBI wanted terrorist poster that Seattle prevailed upon the FBI to withdraw [ in 2013]. And as soon as we triumphed, Seattle transit imposed the infamous Geller ban, banning political, religious and cause-related ads in Seattle (following NY, Washington DC, Boston, Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, etc),” Geller told Breitbart News in the email.
In a document outlining the transit agency’s advertising restrictions, King County officials noted that the policy bans advertising on transit facilities and vehicles that fall within the categories of political, religious, government (except for the county’s), and other forms of “speech.”
“They banned all political ads, as that was the only course of action they could possibly take in order to continue to avoid running my ads,” Geller said. “They’re so determined to continue whitewashing Islam and denying and obfuscating the roots of jihad terror that they are willing to lose immense amounts of revenue from all political advertising.”
Transit agency officials argued that their “viewpoint neutral” ban seeks to prohibit “advertisements that interfere with and divert resources from transit operations, that detract from transit purposes by creating substantial controversy, and/or that pose significant risks of harm, inconvenience, or annoyance to transit passengers, operators, and vehicles.”
“Such advertisements create an environment that is not conducive to achieving increased revenue for the benefit of the transit system or to preserving and enhancing the security, safety, comfort, and convenience of its operations,” the officials added.
Responding to the agency’s argument Geller noted, “I see ads that annoy me all the time. If that is the criterion [for the ban], whose annoyance counts, and whose doesn’t, and why?”
She told Breitbart News that King County’s decision to ban FBI wanted posters featuring some jihadis amounts to the “enforcement of Sharia blasphemy law in another American city.”
King County officials described the transit agency’s advertising ban as“restrictions” that “foster the maintenance of a professional advertising environment that maximizes advertising, revenue, and protects the interests of the captive audience that uses Metro’s transit services.”
In other words, the county’s transportation department believes that banning certain ads will allow the county to generate more revenue.
“The ban will, obviously, drastically curtail their ad revenues. To argue otherwise is plain deception” Geller noted.
Nevertheless, the county asserted that the advertising policy intends to fulfill the following goals:
Maximizing advertising revenue; maintaining a position of neutrality and preventing the appearance of favoritism or endorsement by the county; preventing the risk of imposing objectionable, inappropriate or harmful view on a captive audience; preserving the value of the advertising space; maximizing ridership and maintaining a safe environment for transit customers and other members of the public; avoiding claims of discrimination and maintaining a non-discriminatory environment for riders; preventing any harm or abuse that may result from running objectionable, inappropriate, or harmful advertisements; [and] reducing the diversion of resources from transit operations that is caused by objectionable, inappropriate or harmful advertisements.
Geller vowed to keep fighting for free speech all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary to ensure Seattle upholds the appeal court’s ruling.
In 2001, 2005 and 2017, some Democrat House members objected to the certification of electoral votes for the winning Republican presidential candidate. Those objections, while “denialist,” were only symbolic. But Democrat leaders in the House are now suggesting that if they control that body following November’s election–as they well might–they may refuse to allow a victorious Donald Trump to take office.
The Atlantic did the original reporting, behind a paywall. This is from the Election Law Blog:
Murray and other legal scholars say that, absent clear guidance from the Supreme Court, a Trump win could lead to a constitutional crisis in Congress. Democrats would have to choose between confirming a winner many of them believe is ineligible and defying the will of voters who elected him. …
In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility. But during oral arguments, liberal and conservative justices alike seemed inclined to dodge the question of his eligibility altogether and throw the decision to Congress.
“That would be a colossal disaster,” Representative Adam Schiff of California told me. “We already had one horrendous January 6. We don’t need another.” …
The choice that Democrats would face if Trump won without a definitive ruling on his eligibility was almost too fraught for Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland to contemplate. He told me he didn’t know how he’d vote in that scenario. As we spoke about what might happen, he recalled the brutality of January 6. “There was blood all over the Capitol in the hypothetical you posit,” Raskin, who served on the January 6 committee with Schiff, told me….
The Democrats have become so insane on the subject of Donald Trump that it is hard to know which of their mutterings to take seriously. But if Trump wins the election and a Democrat-controlled House refuses to certify his election on the ground that he is an “insurrectionist” under the 14th Amendment, we will be past the point of a constitutional crisis. If that happens, the only realistic path forward will be disunion, possibly accompanied by civil war, but preferably not.
This is one reason why the Supreme Court should put the 14th Amendment theory out of its misery, once and for all. It is obvious that the drafters of that amendment meant the just-concluded Civil War, in which 600,000 Americans lost their lives, when they referred to “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. In contrast, the January 6 protest was not one of the 50 most destructive riots of the last few years, and the only person killed was Ashli Babbitt. Not a single participant in the protest was arrested in possession of a firearm. Some insurrection!
In the interest of preserving the Republic, the Supreme Court should rule definitively that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Donald Trump.
One of the big stories in the New York Times today is another Clarence Thomas smear, but with a twist: “Justice Thomas Hires Law Clerk Accused of Sending Racist Text Messages.”
The story is about Crystal Clanton, who graduated from the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University in 2022. She is coming off a clerkship with Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit, who calls her “an outstanding law clerk.” Justice Thomas has now hired her to clerk on the Supreme Court.
For the last seven years, Crystal Clanton has been dogged by reports of an email that she allegedly wrote, in which she supposedly said, “I hate black people.” The Times story admits that they have not seen any such message, and are relying on reporting by the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, perhaps the least trustworthy source in America.
In 2017, Clanton was running field operations for Turning Point USA. Mayer did a hit piece on Turning Point that included a variety of allegations, including the one against Clanton. Mayer claimed to have seen a screen shot of the text. The story has dogged Clanton ever since. When she was offered a clerkship on the 11th Circuit by Judge Pryor, seven left-wing members of Congress lodged an ethics complaint against Pryor, based on Clanton’s alleged text. That complaint was investigated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the complaint to be without merit and dismissed it.
This January 2022 story has the details. Clanton left Turning Point after the claim against her was first made, but the Second Circuit found it to be false:
The Turning Point executive “had determined that the source of the allegations against (Clanton) was a group of former employees,” [Second Circuit Chief Judge Debra] Livingston wrote. “One of these employees was fired after the organization learned that this person had created fake text messages to be used against co-workers, to make it appear that those co-workers had engaged in misconduct when they had not.”
Pryor and Maze knew about the allegations against Clanton when they interviewed and hired her. And both determined the allegations of racist behavior by Clanton were untrue and found she was highly qualified to serve as a clerk for them, Livingston wrote.
“There is nothing in the record to dispute any of this,” she noted.
Charlie Kirk is also quoted in that story:
“The media has alleged that Crystal said and did things that are simply untrue,” Kirk wrote. “I have first-hand knowledge of the situations reported on and I can assure that the media has made serious errors and omissions. The sources of these reports are a group of former employees that have a well-documented desire to malign Crystal’s reputation.”
The employee who was fired had “created fake text messages to be used against other employees,” Kirk wrote.
Crystal Clanton got to know Ginny Thomas when she worked at Turning Point, and she was evidently so distraught about her departure from that group that she lived with the Thomases for nearly a year. So Thomas knows her well. He wrote a letter in connection with the Second Circuit investigation:
“I know Crystal Clanton and I know bigotry,” Thomas wrote. “Bigotry is antithetical to her nature and character.”
Clanton didn’t respond to the Times’s request for comment in the story they published today, but back in 2017 she told The New Yorker that “I have no recollection of these messages and they do not reflect what I believe or who I am, and the same was true when I was a teenager.”
So there the matter rests. The moral of the story, I suppose, is that the Left never forgets. No matter that she was cleared by an investigation by one of the nation’s courts of appeals; once the Left gets its hands on a smear it never lets go. It will never stop trying to destroy your life. And of course, The New Yorker and the New York Times are two of the worst offenders.
Also, what makes this old story worthy of the Times’s A section? Only the fact that Justice Thomas is involved. The Times doesn’t care about a law clerk of whom few people have heard, but it cares deeply about smearing the country’s top conservative African-American. But what, exactly, are we supposed to infer from the Times story? That Clarence Thomas is weirdly favorable to those who hate black people?
A final irony: Supreme Court justices have no doubt hired any number of clerks who have written and spoken favorably about DEI, which actually is racist. But there is no controversy there: on the contrary, endorsing that form of racism is a badge of honor.
The Supreme Court has held 9-0 that the Colorado Supreme Court erred in blessing the disqualification of Donald Trump from the state’s primary election ballot under section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s opinion is per curiam. Justice Barrett concurs in part and concurs in the judgment. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concur in the judgment (i.e., the result). The Court’s opinions are posted online here.
The Court’s per curiam opinion commanded a majority and its reasoning represents the law. It rests substantially on the exclusive power of Congress to enforce section 3 against candidates for federal office, “especially the presidency.”
Does the opinion leave open the possibility that Congress might refuse to certify Trump as president if he were to be elected president on the ground that he is guilty of insurrection? If Congress has not prescribed any means other than conviction of the crime of insurrection to make the determination underlying application of section 3, I doubt it. See opinion at 10. However, I may be mistaken. Perhaps the opinion cannot be read that broadly.
The opinion concludes (emphasis in original, citations omitted):
All nine Members of the Court agree with that result. Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it. So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into account the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices. But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches.
Read the whole thing here.
UPDATE: Although he characterizes it as a 5-4 decision, Andrew McCarthy supports my reading of the per curiam opinion: “What that means is that if Donald Trump were to win the presidential election, congressional Democrats would not be able — in the next January 6 joint session of Congress — to refuse to ratify his victory on the grounds that he is an insurrectionist. Under the Court’s holding, it is now a prerequisite to enforcement of the Section 3 disqualification that a person must have been convicted under the insurrection statute.”
Last week I observed in “Liberal Fragility” how liberal law professors supposedly break down in tears they are so depressed that the Supreme Court has taken a turn away from the palmy days of their beloved Warren Court (which, recall, Barack Obama once said did not go far enough in the direction of true “equality”). Just imagine how much Xanax is being ingested after yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that leaves Trump on the ballot.
I expected something like this from Keith Olbermann:
Dissolve the Court! Remind me again who is the threat to democracy and trasher of “democratic norms”? Almost makes you long for the good old days of court-packing.
But I hadn’t expected that a supposed conservative could be equally idiotic, but then the side-effects of Trump Derangement Syndrome, for which there is no vaccine, appear to be even worse that I thought:
The Supreme Court will decide if the Biden-Garland Justice Department’s “Ghost Gun” Rule violates the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
The post Supreme Court to Tackle Biden DOJ’s ‘Ghost Gun’ Rule appeared first on Breitbart.
CNN host Jake Tapper said Monday on his show "The Lead" that former President Donald Trump’s immunity argument was "crazy" because it would allow him to "do anything."
The post CNN’s Tapper: Trump’s Supreme Court Immunity Argument Is ‘Crazy’ appeared first on Breitbart.
Europe's highest rights body called on Britain to scrap a plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, saying it raised "major issues".
The post Scrap Rwanda Migrant Resettlement Plan, Council of Europe Tells Britain appeared first on Breitbart.
Supreme Court justices appeared split during oral arguments on Wednesday in a case surrounding the Biden administration’s attempt to require emergency room doctors to perform abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA).
The post Supreme Court Seems Split on Biden Mandating Emergency Room Abortions appeared first on Breitbart.
I can’t tell you how many people I know who do not like former President Donald Trump yet nonetheless smell prosecutorial overreach in Manhattan.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged the former president with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
The case began with Michael Cohen, Trump’s onetime fixer, making a “hush money” payment to the former adult film actress known as Stormy Daniels to keep her from revealing information about an alleged sexual relationship with Trump in 2006. Bragg used the fact that Cohen paid $130,000 to Daniels in 2016, when Trump was running for president, as a pretext to turn a moldy misdemeanor offense into a felony.
But is it even illegal? This trial showcases something rich men and big corporations have been doing for years—paying off mistresses or wronged staffers with cash settlements with little public scrutiny, thanks to nondisclosure agreements.
I don’t like it, but it’s not a crime.
On Tuesday, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified that during a 2015 meeting in Trump Tower, he told Trump, Cohen, and campaign stalwart Hope Hicks that he wanted to help the Trump campaign, if behind the scenes.
What followed was “catch and kill,” the term for the scheme of paying to get dirt on a public figure, then killing the story, as happened with another alleged Trump gal pal, Karen McDougal. The National Enquirer paid her $150,000 for a story that never ran.
Trump has denied that anything extramarital occurred with McDougal and Daniels. But as Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, told CNN, “You don’t pay someone $130,000 not to have sex with you.”
Back to Cohen. He’s a flawed witness to be sure, who in 2018 pleaded guilty to charges that included tax evasion and lying to Congress when he testified about Trump, his former master. Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison.
Then, last year, Cohen claimed that he lied when he admitted to tax evasion. A more careful prosecutor would not hang a case on an accomplished liar.
Given his capacity for self-pity and self-sabotage, it’s no surprise that Trump told reporters after the second day of trial, “I’m not allowed to defend myself.”
Trump also continued to throw shade at Judge Juan Merchan, whose gag order, Trump maintained, robbed him of his “right to free speech.” Trump also offered that Merchan “should recuse himself.”
Pecker testified that he was glad to help by running “positive stories about Mr. Trump,” as well as negative stories about his campaign rivals. I’m guessing many Big Media hotshots feel the same way—about President Joe Biden.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
The post Trump Faces 34 Felonies at Trial. But Was There a Crime? appeared first on The Daily Signal.
A majority of Supreme Court justices sympathized with Donald Trump's attorneys' arguments that a president does enjoy some level of immunity that endures past the term of office.
The post Supreme Court Poised to Agree with Trump: Former Presidents Are Immune from Some Prosecutions appeared first on Breitbart.
Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said Thursday on MSNBC's "The Beat" that Justice Samuel Alito's comments about SEAL Team 6 were "mocking our military" during the Supreme Court oral arguments on former President Donald Trump's claim that he is immune from prosecution.
The post Brinkley: Justice Alito’s ‘Irresponsible’ SEAL Team 6 Comments ‘Mocking Our Military’ appeared first on Breitbart.
Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said Thursday on CNN's "The Lead" that the Supreme Court acted like "partisan hacks" during the oral arguments on Donald Trump's claim that he is immune from prosecution.
The post Dem Rep. Lofgren: Supreme Court Looked Like ‘Partisan Hacks’ During Trump Immunity Argument appeared first on Breitbart.
Princeton professor Eddie Glaude Jr. said Thursday on MSNBC's "José Díaz-Balart Reports" that the Supreme Court considering arguments in Donald Trump's presidential immunity case was "really American democracy in the balance."
The post Glaude on Trump Immunity Case: ‘This Is Really American Democracy in the Balance’ appeared first on Breitbart.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday questioned if the criminal prosecution of an incumbent — who narrowly lost an election — could lead to the destabilization of the country as a whole as opposed to the incumbent knowing he could leave office peacefully.
The post Justice Samuel Alito Questions if Criminal Prosecution of Former President ‘Destabilizes the Functioning of Our Country’ appeared first on Breitbart.
A majority of the Supreme Court justices appeared to sympathize with Trump's attorneys' arguments that a president does enjoy some level of immunity that continues past the term of office.
The post Justice Samuel Alito Cites ‘Old Saw About Indicting a Ham Sandwich’ in Trump Immunity Case appeared first on Breitbart.
A majority of Supreme Court justices sympathized with Trump's lawyers' argument that a president does enjoy some level of immunity past the term of office.
The post Justice Alito Presses Jack Smith’s Team on Claim That Former Presidents Lack Immunity appeared first on Breitbart.
Harvard Law professor emeritus Laurence Tribe said Friday on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports" that he believes the Supreme Court is following former President Donald Trump's "strategy of delay, delay."
The post Tribe: Shameful Supreme Court ‘Has Gone Along with the Trump Strategy of Delay, Delay Delay’ appeared first on Breitbart.
Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said Thursday on MSNBC's "The ReidOut" that the Supreme Court should be moved to the Republican National Committee (RNC) headquarters after their questions during the oral arguments on immunity for former President Donald Trump.
The post Raskin: Supreme Court Should Be Moved ‘Over to the RNC Headquarters’ appeared first on Breitbart.
This is the "whirlwind" Schumer sought to unleash against the Supreme Court, and against conservatives in particular.
The post Blue State Blues: Schumer ‘Reaps the Whirlwind’ with Protests at His House appeared first on Breitbart.
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that after listening to oral arguments, the Supreme Court was close to "election interference" with their consideration of former President Donald Trump's immunity claim.
The post Brazile: Supreme Court Close to Election Interference, ‘Justice Delayed Is Democracy Denied’ appeared first on Breitbart.
Retired Federal Judge J. Michael Luttig said Sunday on MSNBC's "Velshi" that the Supreme Court was fiddling as former President Donald Trump's immunity claims are an "existential threat to America's democracy."
The post Luttig: Supreme Court Fiddling While Trump Is an ‘Existential Threat to America’s Democracy’ appeared first on Breitbart.
The left-wing Arabella Advisors network has raked in more money than either of the two major political parties and affects almost every element of public policy and elections, argues Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, a Washington-based investigative think tank.
Walter’s new book “Arabella: The Dark Money Network of Leftist Billionaires Secretly Transforming America” shows that in the 2020 election cycle, Arabella Advisors’ nonprofits took in $2.4 billion. That’s $1 billion more than the combined fundraising of the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee.
That amount rose to $3 billion in the 2022 election cycle, Walter says. Moreover, he adds, nothing on the Right comes close to competing.
“Arabella does not discriminate. It is working on arcane regulatory issues … but it also is running Facebook ads, attacking certain congressional candidates and boosting others. It plays in environmental issues. It plays in abortion issues. It plays in election policy,” Walter says on “The Daily Signal Podcast.”
Walter is set to testify Tuesday before the House Natural Resources Committee about what he calls “left-wing dark money [used] to influence environmental policy.”
“Arabella also continues to be very active in the environmental policy area in all sorts of ways,” he adds.
Arabella-backed organizations have been involved in battles over abortion and Supreme Court nominations and advocated that biological males compete in women’s sports.
Walter’s book details how two Arabella-aligned groups, the Center for Secure and Modern Elections and the Institute for Responsive Government, are involved in shaping election policy at the local level.
He notes that an Arabella-sponsored group funded by billionaire financier George Soros helped formulate the Biden administration’s recent change in Title IX policy to make it easier for biological males to compete in girls’ scholastic sports.
“That was plotted through a highly secretive group in the Arabella network, funded entirely with Soros money,” Walter said. “Governing for Impact, which they started in 2019, two years before the Biden administration was even sworn in. And they worked with Harvard Law School folks to do very sophisticated legal strategy memos of how to overturn dozens of regulations in the federal government, the most famous being Title IX.”
What’s differentiates Arabella from other major donors on the Left is the level of secrecy, Walter says. The network is more secretive than most nonprofits financed by Soros and his family, he says.
“We have tracked the institutional donors, and we can tell you that for almost all of the Arabella nonprofits, Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, which provides donor-advised funds to wealthy people, is the largest,” Walter said. He added, “Other really big donors to the Arabella network have [included Microsoft co-founder] Bill Gates. He is one of the largest, mostly through his foundation. [Facebook founder] Mark Zuckerberg has given tens of millions, mostly for criminal justice reform—quote unquote—[that results in] letting criminals back on the streets.”
A spokesperson for Arabella Advisors didn’t respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment for this report.
Listen to Walter outline Arabella’s reach in a discussion of his book in the podcast below:
The post Arabella Network’s Leftist ‘Dark Money’ Influence Expanding, Author Reveals appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Eight Democrat-nominated judges shoved transgender surgery closer to becoming a constitutional right via their decision Monday in a federal appeals court.
The post Appeals Court Says States Must Fund Transgender Surgeries appeared first on Breitbart.
A mob of angry students attacked German Ambassador to the Palestinian Authority Oliver Owcza at Birzeit University in the West Bank.
The post Palestinian Mob Attacks German Ambassador in West Bank appeared first on Breitbart.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Israel would reject any attempt by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to indict Israeli officials over the war in Gaza -- and that it would destroy Hamas regardless.
The post Netanyahu Blasts ICC, Vows to Destroy Hamas — Deal or No Deal appeared first on Breitbart.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is taking lawsuits against the Illinois "assault weapons" ban and the ban in Maryland into conference.
The post U.S. Supreme Court Taking Gun Ban Challenges to Conference appeared first on Breitbart.
There are many reasons why legal experts are questioning the legitimacy of the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump. But the major reason is that the main claim in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case—that Trump’s $130,000 settlement payment of a potential claim by Stormy Daniels was a campaign-related expense—is totally bogus.
Here’s a quick tutorial on why Bragg doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on—call it “Federal Campaign Finance Law for Dummies 101”—an apropos title, given what’s going on.
Daniels claims that she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, fully 10 years before the 2016 presidential election, which Trump denies. For the payment, Daniels agreed to sign a nondisclosure agreement, which is a standard provision in many settlement agreements of personal injury cases and other claims.
Bragg contends that Trump falsified business records, a misdemeanor, when this payment was listed as legal expenses instead of a campaign expense.
Supposedly, according to Bragg, that converted the misdemeanors into felonies because Trump was concealing another crime. That other crime, according to prosecutors, is a violation of Section 17-152 of New York law, which makes it a misdemeanor to “promote … the election of any person to public office by unlawful means.”
Besides the fact that it’s very strange to allege that the commission of a misdemeanor for the purpose of covering up the commission of another misdemeanor is enough to allege a felony, the only plausible theory that Bragg is pushing for the alleged “unlawful means” was a violation of federal law by concealing a campaign-related payment.
With me so far?
But Trump was running for president. The raising and spending of money for campaigns for president and Congress is governed by federal law, the Federal Election Campaign Act, not state law. Any wrongdoing related to federal campaign financing falls under the enforcement authority of federal officials, not a local prosecutor like Bragg.
In fact, the Federal Election Commission, on which I served as a commissioner, has civil enforcement authority and the U.S. Department of Justice has criminal enforcement authority over violations of this law.
For the nuisance-value settlement payment to Daniels to fit within Bragg’s rickety legal structure, it would have to be a crime under federal law. In other words, it would have to be considered a campaign-related expense that was falsely reported under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
If you want an example of such a violation, just look at the $113,000 civil penalty the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee agreed to pay in 2022. They listed the payments for the opposition research that formed the basis for the infamous Steele dossier, which fabricated the entire Trump-Russia collusion hoax, as legal expenses instead of opposition research.
But opposition research on the opposing candidate is obviously a campaign-related expense under applicable federal law, so the FEC had authority to investigate and enforce the law against this deception.
That’s not the case with the Daniels’ payment. For starters, the incident in question that led to the payment is alleged to have happened 10 years before the 2016 campaign. More importantly, the payment fails the test the FEC applies to determine whether an expense is campaign-related.
Under federal law and corresponding regulations, the FEC applies the “irrespective test” to “differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses.” As the FEC explains on its website, under the irrespective test, “personal use is any use of funds … to fulfill a commitment, obligation, or expense of any person that would exist, irrespective of the candidates’ campaign.”
In other words, if the expense would exist even if the individual were not a candidate, then it’s personal and not a campaign expense.
The payment to Daniels clearly fails that test. Trump was a celebrity long before he ran for office, and celebrities get these kinds of nuisance claims all the time. In fact, the prosecution’s first witness in the New York case, David Pecker, said he had helped settle similar claims to avoid legal costs and embarrassment by suppressing stories for numerous other celebrities, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tiger Woods.
The easiest way to understand this test is to take the example of a personal injury claim.
Candidate A has a car accident several years before he runs for Congress that injures another driver. After the campaign has started, the candidate decides to settle the personal injury claim made by the other driver by paying that driver $130,000 in exchange for a nondisclosure agreement.
Settling and paying the claim may help the candidate in his campaign by avoiding personal embarrassment. But that doesn’t make it a campaign expense. It’s a claim that would exist even if the candidate were not running for office and is thus considered a personal expense under federal law.
Daniels’ claim is also a personal claim that existed long before Trump ran for the presidency and, given his celebrity status, would have continued to exist even if he never ran for president.
That’s no doubt why neither the FEC nor the Justice Department ever filed an enforcement action against the Trump campaign or Trump personally over the payment; specifically, because it was not a campaign-related expense.
You know what would have led to enforcement actions? If Trump had actually claimed this was a campaign-related expense and had used campaign funds to make the payment, I have no doubt he would have been prosecuted by the feds for the illegal use of campaign funds to pay a personal expense.
That’s what former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., went to prison for after he pleaded guilty in 2013 to spending $750,000 on personal expenses.
Keep in mind that Bragg’s entire manufactured case of 34 counts of falsifying business records depends entirely on the legitimacy of his contention that the settlement payment should have been listed as a campaign-related expense.
It shouldn’t because it wasn’t.
And all of the other testimony from the prosecution’s witnesses about this payment and other settlement payments that are obviously intended to blacken the character of the former president and prejudice the jury doesn’t change the fact that none of these payments were campaign-related expenses. Period. End of story—or at least it should be.
The post Trump’s NY Prosecution Is a Bogus Case by a Bogus Prosecutor appeared first on The Daily Signal.
A convicted sex offender is asking the Norwegian Supreme Court to declare that social media access is a human right.
The post Sex Offender Who Contacted Young Boys Online Wants Social Media Access Declared a Human Right appeared first on Breitbart.
The government of Turkey announced on Wednesday that it is seeking to become a party to a case accusing Israel of "genocide" against the terrorist organization Hamas at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The post Islamist Turkey to Join South Africa’s ‘Genocide’ Complaint Against Israel at the Hague appeared first on Breitbart.
Legislation adopted Wednesday by the House of Representatives would restore a question about U.S. citizenship to the 2030 census, potentially reshaping congressional representation and the Electoral College.
Lawmakers voted, 206-202, to pass the Equal Representation Act, a bill championed by Reps. Chuck Edwards, R-N.C., and Warren Davidson, R-Ohio. (See how your representative voted.) Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., introduced the Senate version, which Republicans overwhelmingly supported in a March vote.
With millions of illegal aliens residing in the United States—a problem exacerbated by the Biden administration’s border policies—the legislation aims to protect Americans’ electoral power and congressional representation by ensuring foreign citizens aren’t counted in the census.
“If you are an illegal immigrant, you should not be represented in the U.S. Congress,” House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., told The Daily Signal. “It’s a shame that House Democrats are allowing their open-borders agenda to get in the way of common sense.”
One of those Democrats openly acknowledged the benefits of counting illegal aliens. Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., admitted, “We have a diaspora that can absorb a significant number of these migrants. … I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes.”
Democrat Congresswoman Yvette Clarke on illegal immigrants in America:
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) January 9, 2024
"I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes."
The end game: Dems are willing to destroy what it means to be an American citizen to help themselves politically. pic.twitter.com/3XmBDqYEsH
After being in all but one census from 1820 to 2000, the citizenship question was abandoned in the 2010 questionnaire during the Obama administration. The Trump administration attempted to restore the citizenship question for the 2020 census, but a divided Supreme Court ruled against its approach, and the idea was abandoned.
The Equal Representation Act would require the citizenship question on the 2030 census and each decennial census that follows.
Heritage Action, an independent partner of The Heritage Foundation, advocated for passage of the Equal Representation Act. The organization scored Wednesday’s vote on HR 7109. (The Heritage Foundation created The Daily Signal in 2014.)
Ryan Walker, Heritage Action’s executive vice president, faulted the Obama administration for undoing nearly 200 years of precedent. Walker said the consequences of inaction are significant, given the ongoing border crisis.
“Illegal immigrants and other noncitizens cannot vote, and should not be given the power to sway our elections or congressional maps—especially in light of Joe Biden’s border crisis that has brought more than 10 million people into our country,” Walker said. “The Equal Representation Act puts electoral power back in the hands of those with the right to vote—American citizens—something every member of Congress must protect.”
The House version amassed 114 co-sponsors and was approved by the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability in April on a 22-20 vote.
Illegal aliens should have ZERO influence in our electoral process.
— Rep. Eric Burlison (@RepEricBurlison) May 8, 2024
You don't get to come to our country, break our laws, and then be included in congressional apportionment.
That's why I cosponsored the Equal Representation Act, which the House will vote on tonight.
“Members of Congress represent U.S. citizens, not foreigners,” said Davidson, the bill’s co-sponsor. “Under the Democrats’ open-border policies, sanctuary cities and states inflate their population with illegal aliens. Then they’re rewarded with more congressional representation by a census that counts illegals. The inflated count is then used to draw congressional maps, undermining fair representation for our citizens.”
Edwards stressed only American citizens can legally vote, “so, only American citizens should be counted when determining federal representation.”
Hagerty forced a vote on the Equal Representation Act in March. It ultimately failed, 51-45, although only one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted against it. Three other Republicans didn’t vote.
The post House Passes Bill to Restore Citizenship Question to Census appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the Supreme Court is doing a "grave disservice" to the nation by delaying its ruling on former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim.
The post Clinton: Supreme Court Doing ‘Grave Disservice’ by Not Deciding Trump Immunity appeared first on Breitbart.
An attorney for Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist for former President Donald Trump, issued a statement in response to an appeals court upholding a contempt conviction for defying a subpoena from the January 6 Select Committee.
The post Attorney for Steve Bannon Responds to Appeals Court Upholding Contempt Conviction: ‘Decision Is Wrong’ appeared first on Breitbart.
Having served on three Manhattan juries, I would not be surprised if the 12 men and women hearing New York v. Donald J. Trump acquit him of all charges.
During two civil actions and one criminal case, my fellow jurors were serious, professional, and movingly civic-minded. A quiet, solemn patriotism infused our deliberations. Several jurors said that we should respect the justice system because, someday, we might need it to respect us.
My first case was a medical-malpractice lawsuit involving a botched abortion. We empathized with a woman wounded by her doctors, but her lawyer did not prove negligence. So, we backed her physicians.
“But we’ve got to give her something,” one juror insisted.
Others instantly rebuked him.
“That’s not how it works!” one said. “I feel sorry for her, too,” another admitted. “But her lawyer never made her case.”
So, we sent the plaintiff home without a penny.
Next, we deliberated intensely for almost three days before concluding that a Harlem drug counselor never demonstrated his defamation-of-character claim against his employers. My sympathetic pleas went unheeded, and he left empty-handed.
Finally, in her closing argument, a criminal prosecutor displayed a CD-ROM of a police dispatcher’s “Be on the lookout” announcement after an armed robbery. When we asked the judge to play that recording, he told us that it was not in evidence.
Disgusted by this prosecutorial deception, we instantly and angrily acquitted the defendants. Minutes later, as foreman, I proudly announced our verdict in court.
These three cases confirm that Manhattan juries are sober and perfectly capable of fairness.
That is good news for Trump.
A jury of levelheaded Manhattanites would appreciate these facts that verify the profound vacuity and fundamental unfairness of District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s “case” against Trump:
“The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement,” the memo says.
Nowhere does this federal rule grant local prosecutors authority to enforce federal election laws. Thus, Bragg’s case is a shack built atop a cloud of helium.
With 48% of registered voters telling Reuters-Ipsos last month that Trump’s Kafkaesque cases are “excessive and politically motivated” (41% disagree) even a Manhattan jury could scrap Bragg’s contraption.
My memories of jury duty, including within the Stalinesque building in which Trump is being persecuted, tell me that deliberating jurors could think, “I won’t vote for Trump. But I cannot convict him beyond a reasonable doubt in a shaky case about actions that are lurid, but legal.”
If just one juror agrees, this case will end with a hung jury. A second trial would be unlikely before Election Day.
And if “lurid, but legal” reflects the opinions of 12 of my fellow Manhattanites—who tend to be tough, but fair—then Trump will be acquitted on all charges and go back to where he belongs: The campaign trail.
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
The post Could a Manhattan Jury Acquit Trump? appeared first on The Daily Signal.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., in New York on Tuesday, condemned the so-called hush-money criminal trial of former President Donald Trump.
Johnson blasted the trial as a “sham” and said that it’s being used to manipulate the 2024 presidential election.
I’m disgusted by what’s happening in the sham trial against President Trump.
— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) May 14, 2024
The American people can see it’s politically motivated.
Their star witness, Michael Cohen, is a known liar who is clearly on a mission for personal revenge. pic.twitter.com/dub4dyu91s
“I’m an attorney. I’m a former litigator myself. I’m disgusted by what is happening here,” the Louisiana lawmaker said. “What is being done here is being done to our entire system of justice overall.”
Johnson said the American people are “losing faith” in the U.S. justice system and our institutions because they see them being “abused.”
The House speaker said the facts in Trump’s case are important, as they always are in a trial. The former president’s actions were “previously reviewed, and no charges were filed. Why is that?” Johnson asked rhetorically.
“Because there’s no crime here,” he said, answering his own question.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg started up this case eight years after the crime was allegedly committed, Johnson said, because “it’s painfully obvious, we’re six months out from an election day, and that’s the reason they brought these charges here and across the country.”
Johnson noted that the legal officials in this case are all partisan Democrats.
“What we’ve got here is a partisan Democrat district attorney. We have a [President Joe] Biden donor judge, and we have an [assistant district attorney] who was recently a top official at the Department of Justice, Biden’s DOJ, and recently received over $10,000 in payments from the Democratic National Committee,” he said.
Bragg, who brought the charges against Trump, also is a Democrat.
Johnson said the “star witness” in the Trump trial, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, is simply out for retribution.
Cohen is “clearly on a mission for personal revenge,” the Louisiana Republican said, adding that Cohen is known to be a witness who “has had trouble with the truth.”
Cohen admitted to lying to Congress in 2017, which was among the crimes that led to his disbarment.
“There’s nothing he presents here that should be given any weight at all by a jury and certainly not by this judge,” Johnson said.
The charge against Trump is falsification of business records, he said, “but I think everyone knows that he is not the bookkeeper of his company.”
The House speaker said Trump is “innocent” in the case and that “anyone with common sense can see what’s happening here.”
On top of everything else, Johnson said, the court has issued a gag order against Trump, which deprives the former president of his right to free speech during an election campaign. The whole trial represents a clear case where the judicial system has been weaponized against Trump, he said, and is punishing one presidential nominee while providing “cover” for another.
“The American people are not going to let this stand,” Johnson said. “Election Day cannot get here soon enough, and we will continue to shine a light on all of this in Congress because we have that constitutional responsibility.”
The post ‘SHAM’: House Speaker Johnson Condemns Trial of Trump as ‘Politically Motivated’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Vaunce News 
