Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Crashing a pier and America's credibility
By Mike McDaniel
‘Guilty!’ And Trump’s re-election prospects get a boost
By Ethel C. Fenig
To paraphrase the great showman P.T. Barnum, after a jury in New York declared former President Donald J. Trump (R) guilty, guilty, and guilty again and again and again, etc., Trump might have thought, “I don’t care what the biased jury says about me as long as they spell my name right.” And the jury and the hordes of media, which ghoulishly shrieked the verdict, spelled his name so accurately that, proving Barnum was once again correct when he observed, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity,” campaign contributions for a Trump presidency poured in so heavily, to the tune of $34.8 million in just a few hours after the verdict that his campaign website crashed. As of this moment, it is up and accepting contributions.
Although presently the 2024 presidential race between presumptive Republican nominee Donald J. Trump and presumptive Democrat nominee Joseph R. Biden is this close — i.e., essentially tied — much can change in the months until the election.
And of course there is election fraud, which can alter the outcome, no matter the polls. Although both parties are known to commit such unmentionables, Democrats seem to do it more often as these admittedly biased examples from the Heritage Foundation, the New York Post (also here), the Association of Mature American Citizens, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office demonstrate.
And there are other legal tricks that can swing elections — e.g., media bias.
And more. Stay tuned. Remain alert. And remember New York Yankees outstanding catcher and even more insightful philosopher Yogi Berra’s accurate understanding of life: “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.” I repeat: stay tuned, remain alert. And yes, vote!
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/guilty_and_trump_s_re_election_prospects_get_a_boost.html
Boycott New York
By Lynne Lechter
‘Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime’ is a popularized version of what they do in communist countries.
Dictatorial regimes accuse and imprison political opponents on trumped-up charges. Legal recourse is impossible.
Americans have prided themselves on the sanctity of the United States’s legal system.
While there was acknowledgement that minorities had been legally discriminated against, the prevailing view has been that America possessed a superior legal system with multiple levels of appeals if one was unhappy with a criminal verdict. In fact, Americans were so sure of their legal superiority, they derided other court systems, in addition to communist show trials, particularly those in Central and South American countries, as those of ‘banana republics.’
Without a shredding machine, New York City’s legal system, which was hijacked to persecute President Trump, has destroyed at least half of Americas’ perception of the sanctity of its legal system. Is it really any better than the old communist systems, or those of the banana republics? It certainly doesn’t seem so tonight.
It is hard to disagree with President Trump that, the trial against him was anything but a “rigged” case, brought by a “corrupt” district attorney, run by a “conflicted” judge, and decided by a “biased” jury.
All of which was facilitated by the fact that 87% to 90% of New Yorkers vote Democrat and hate Trump!
Legally, Trump will appeal and hopefully obtain an expedited appellate hearing, and an expedited route to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, what can his supporters do?
Civil war and disruptions are not typically tactics employed by Republicans or independents, nor does this author advocate those reactions.
The Democrats and their henchmen and henchwomen own the violence monopoly.
Clearly, Trump’s attorneys will appeal. However, appeals take time, even when granted expedited process.
Filing a lawsuit suit against Biden for perpetuating the ultimate election interference should happen. But that will also take time.
In the short term, perhaps there is a way all of us who are revolted by this legal lynching can show our opposition: With boycotts.
Copying, as the anti-Israel crowd likes to say: Boycott, Divest from Israel or “BDI,” this boycott could proclaim “BDNYC,” meaning Boycott, Disengage from New York City with the logo being a rotten apple.
Perhaps the smug, faux sophisticated, insufferably mean, even evil, New Yorkers will be shocked to find a future where tourism is dying. Hopefully, they will be stunned to discover that they don’t have to tip to score a table at a “hot,” overly-expensive restaurant or bar, and that there is no more fun to “see and be seen” because nobody will be there to see. Maybe they will be astonished to observe that there are no ‘out-of-towners in theatres or museums, which means they will be forced to pay ever higher taxes.
If anyone thinks this trial was not a political set-up, they should be disabused by Biden’s reaction: a pompous, ‘holier than thou’ diatribe against Trump’s very valid complaints regarding the legal set-up against him.
Our country is a far more dangerous place today.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/boycott_new_york.html
Gee, I thought Stalin was dead!
By Mark C. Ross
Biden's evil smirk and the left dancing like demons about Trump's punishment, their imaginations afire
By M. Walter
The missing element in Bragg's case
By Mike McDaniel
There is something vital and profoundly disturbing missing from Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Donald Trump: police involvement. It’s possible some police officers were assigned to the prosecutor’s office, but if so, their names do not appear in the indictment (available here), nor, according to The Hill, there were no police officers among the 20 prosecution and two defense witnesses. I’ve been unable to find any evidence of police participation.
So, no cops were apparently involved. So what?
The police are a essential initiator of criminal charges. They’re also a multi-layered filter for false and/or political charges against the innocent. Among their many duties, police supervisors are charged with ensuring every charge made by an officer is legitimate, untainted by laziness, personal animus or political dirty tricks. Supervisors at the rank of Lt. and Captain serve as further filters, reviewing all paperwork submitted to prosecutors to ensure police integrity. Tainted, bad cases blow back on every police officer, making an already difficult job harder and more dangerous, and professional agencies take preserving their integrity seriously.
The criminal justice process is supposed to begin with the police, with a predicate—a reason—to investigate any crime. The predicate may be a citizen report of a crime, which followed up by detectives yields a suspect. It may be information from informants, but in that case, the police are careful to confirm that information; they don’t just take any informant’s word. Or a police officer may simply witness someone committing a crime.
It's essential this process is followed. Without it, officers may decide, without a predicate, someone needs to go to jail. Supervisors at every level may fail in filtering. Failing to involve the police also wastes their training, knowledge and experience.
Normally, a crime is initially investigated by a patrol officer, then forwarded to a detective. If the detective finds a suspect and enough evidence to constitute probable cause, they send an affidavit to the prosecutor, listing their name, position and experience and describing, in detail, why they believe a specific crime has been committed and why they believe a specific person committed it. Notice, the legitimate process always begins with a crime.
It's then up to the prosecutor to determine whether there is enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Prosecutors do not conduct investigations. They aren’t trained to do that, they’re not competent nor do they remotely have the time, particularly in a major city. If additional evidence is needed, they ask the detective involved to find it.
If a criminal case goes to trial with no police involvement, something has gone wrong.
In the Trump case, Alvin Bragg ran for office on the promise to “get” Donald Trump. His predecessor, Cyrus Vance, refused to prosecute the case, as did every level of the Federal Government, refusing even a civil effort. Bragg initially refused the case, but decided to pursue it when a former assistant prosecutor wrote a book about it.
The indictment reads:
THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
The remaining counts simply add check or voucher numbers. No “another crime” is identified, nor is any police officer/investigator mentioned. It’s possible an officer testified before the grand jury, but if so, they would have been essential to establish a foundation for at least some evidence at trial, and no officer testified there.
Grand juries do not investigate crimes. They hear only the “evidence” presented by prosecutors, which is the origin of the old saw: “a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”
The third ranking lawyer at the federal DOJ helped Bragg prosecute the case—an enormous voluntary demotion--and innumerable assistant prosecutors were involved. It appears no investigation was necessary. They had their man, and they invented three uncharged and unproven crimes, part and parcel of an unprecedented, “novel legal theory.”
Even though they were apparently not involved, the police will suffer for this perversion of the criminal justice system. We all will.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/the_missing_element_in_bragg_s_case.html
The nullification of Donald Trump
By Geoffrey P. Hunt
The cult of Trump?
By Mike McDaniel
Vermont effectively criminalizes oil production
By Eric Utter
Book Review: Jack Cashill’s illuminating look at the women of January 6
By John Dale Dunn
The Cancellation of Liberty
By William Manning
Supply chain disruptions were one aspect of the post-COVID chaos the world was subjected to. Politicians were gobsmacked to learn that shutting down the global economy caused markets to function erratically. They believed that markets operate at their pleasure. By the snap of a finger or wink of an eye they could shut down the global economy and by the same wink or snap markets would restart uninterrupted. One might call this the King Louis XVI syndrome, defined as the irrational belief by political elites that establishing unclever policies will result in predictable, poignant, popular outcomes. Their inevitable response to the unpopular outcome is the classic retort attributed to Marie Antionette, “let them eat cake.”
We live in an era in which American government has been grown into a monster that devours the treasure and liberty of its people. If the government is of, by, and for the people, political factions have trained the monster to consume itself. Sadly, many subscribe to the notion that no problem, existent or imagined, is too big or small for the government to solve. An analyst at a conservative news outlet seemed disappointed that Secretary of Commerce Pete Buttigieg, didn’t snap his fingers to solve the supply chain crisis. The supply chain crisis was a result of poor government policy. Why would anyone look to the government to solve it?
Government action to correct a problem often makes the problem worse or creates new problems. For instance, the supply chain crisis was a symptom of the COVID virus which likely, “originated in a Chinese government-controlled lab.” To make matters worse the leaky lab received funding from the National Institute of Health (NIH). But wait, there’s more! On May 16th Dr. Lawrence Tabak admitted the NIH funded gain of function research at the same leaky Chinese lab. Virology Blog explains, “Gain of function (GoF) research gives an organism a new property or enhances an existing one.” While attempting to improve the health of Americans, the NIH gave a leaky Chinese lab tax dollars to make a harmless virus lethal. As a result, Millions may have died, billions were sickened, and trillions were spent by governments globally. The NIH contributed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology:
to improve the health of Americans.
fund the Chinese Communist Party’s development of biological weapons.
had so much money it tossed hundreds of thousands of dollars to a leaky lab in China.
All the above.
Funding GoF research in a substandard lab wasn’t enough to placate the NIH. Based on the science du jour, the government forced ineffective vaccines and masks on people. The NIH worked to “take down” scientists and doctors who offered viable medical alternatives to the government’s official policy. Government scientists then engaged in a strategy of denial and obfuscation to cover their tracks.
There is no other entity on the planet that can toss huge amounts of money around as frivolously as the government of the United States. In 2010 the Obama Administration decided the federal government could more efficiently administer student loans than banks. By doing this the government would save taxpayers billions of dollars, “for college affordability and deficit reduction.” NPR reported in 2022, “From 1997 to 2021, the Education Department estimated that payments from federal direct student loans would generate $114 billion for the government. But the GAO found that, as of 2021, the program has actually cost the government an estimated $197 billion.”
Like Obama, Biden has no business acumen, but he does know how to win elections. He has held federal office for 47 of the last 51 years. In 2022 he thought it would be good politics to forgive the same student loans Obama placed under federal control. This action would cost the taxpayers $400 billion. Biden’s electoral strategy was reversed by the Supreme Court in June of 2023 when they ruled 6-3 to strike down Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. The President should have listened to Speaker Nancy Pelosi who said in 2021, “People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress." For some odd reason Pelosi thought Biden should follow the Constitution, which says, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” Biden was unperturbed. He immediately developed another ruse to bail out student loans in July of 2023 which will cost taxpayers $475 billion. In April of 2024 he hatched yet another scheme that will cost taxpayers an additional $84 billion forgiving a total of $559 billion of student loans. What’s the point of being President if you can’t buy a few votes?
Americans are taught that there are three coequal branches of the federal government. The current leader of the executive branch (and by proclamation the free world) thumbed his nose at the legislative and judicial branches by forgiving student loan loans three times after the Speaker of the House said he shouldn’t and twice after the Supreme Court said he couldn’t.
Sometimes legislation flies in the face of constitutional authority. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 to authorize electronic surveillance and other extraordinary methods of obtaining information related to foreign actors. FISA was expanded in the aftermath of 9/11 to include the tremendous amount of data available from phone and internet communication. When government agencies use technology to gather information related to millions of conversations related to foreign entities, they inevitably capture private information belonging to Americans. The Fourth Amendment protects us against such infringement, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The FBI used the FISA court to illegally obtain warrants to spy on Carter Page in an effort to dig up dirt on Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign. Benjamin Franklin advised, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The American Revolution was fought to assure the people enjoyed the God-given right of liberty. The purpose of government is to protect the people’s rights, not usurp them. The government has become a bloated bureaucratic behemoth more intent on protecting its own agency than serving the people. Political factions use the government to obtain and consolidate power. They use this power to defy the Constitution and trample the rights of the people. Franklin warned us, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” We must draw on the virtue of our national character, reject the machinations of political faction and the expectation that government can solve our problems. It’s time for the people to solve the problems the government has wrought on our nation.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/06/the_cancellation_of_liberty.html
The Trumped Up Conviction and its Consequences
By Clarice Feldman
Some years ago, I was trying a denaturalization case of someone who aided the Nazis. As an aside, the judge mentioned that his dad had been distraught upon hearing of the Hitler-Stalin pact because he knew it meant there would be a world war. I felt much the same upon reading of the verdict in the New York case against President Trump. There have been a number of fine analyses of the case itself, and I have chosen one which I discuss below for its clarity, but I’m concentrating today on the aftermath of this ill-conceived political hit job.
Destabilizing Effect
As the editors of the Wall Street Journal observed about a “turducken” of a case charging a former president of obscure unprecedented offenses which even if proven would constitute only a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitations had long passed:
The conviction sets a precedent of using legal cases, no matter how sketchy, to try to knock out political opponents, including former Presidents. Mr. Trump has already vowed to return the favor. If Democrats felt like cheering Thursday when the guilty verdict was read, they should think again. Mr. Bragg might have opened a new destabilizing era of American politics, and no one can say how it will end.
John Lucas contends that this judge, jury, and prosecutors “have flung this country into a downward spiral from which we may never recover,” he argues, and I agree, the verdict is the most dangerous day in our history.
The Democrats have made the rules, and their opponents will have little choice but to play the game.
This is not a game that can or will be played by one side only. The rules are now set. When Republicans have the chance, they will play the game. Many, perhaps most, will think that a response is mandatory and that “taking the high road” is no longer an option. Instead, it would be regarded by the “progressive” left -- that is to say those now in charge of the Democratic party -- as weakness if they roll over and fail to respond. This is an existential threat to the stability of our political system and nation. That risk makes this the most dangerous day in the history of the Country, at least in our lifetimes.
Henceforth, weaponization of the justice system against a political opponent will be the norm. Political grudges will be resolved by political opponents in cherry-picked courtrooms where conviction is most likely. All this confirms that when controlled by scoundrels, our judicial system is becoming more like what we expect in places like China, Cuba or Venezuela, where political opponents are routinely imprisoned or worse.
Weakness of the Case
Many legal practitioners have noted the major flaws in this case, and have done a fine job of it, but for clear and simple to understand descriptions, I recommend Will Chamberlain’s:
1. It's not remotely clear that a. the records were false or b. that Trump knew anything about the attempt to falsify them. It's not obvious how to classify an NDA [ed: Non-disclosure agreement] expense, and the idea that Trump -- who was President at the time of the alleged falsification -- was paying attention to how expenses were being recorded in drop-down menus on accounting software strains belief. 2. This is the first time that falsification was charged for records *that were not expected to be seen outside the organization*. Falsification is normally charged alongside fraud cases where the falsification is in service of, say, getting a bank to issue a loan it wouldn't otherwise issue. Here there was no fraud. No one was relying on these records. There is no victim.
Surprisingly, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, citing undeniable facts, best lays out the legal contortions underlying the conviction.
The judge donated money [snip] in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind -- to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.”[snip] District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by touting his Trump-hunting prowess.[snip] Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process.
[snip]
The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor -- in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere -- has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.
Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting... Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor -- two years -- likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.
So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) -- and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations -- the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments.
In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.
[snip]
“No man is above the law.” It’s become cliché, but it’s an important point, and it’s worth pausing to reflect on the importance of this core principle. But it’s also meaningless pablum if we unquestioningly tolerate (or worse, celebrate) deviations from ordinary process and principle to get there.
Trump’s Options
He has a fine legal staff which undoubtedly will weigh his options and select the best, but several commentators have offered suggestions. In the first case, he’s now free on bail pending appeal. He cannot file an appeal until he’s sentenced and Judge Juan Merchan has set that date for July 11, four days before the scheduled RNC convention. A look at the NY Supreme Court indicates it’s a one-party operation and gives no assurance that it will reverse the conviction.
Should Merchan sentence him to jail, he would remain free on bail until the appellate court upholds the conviction and sentence. Assuming Merchan sentences him on July 11, it’s possible the appeals court would hear the case in November around the election time. There might be some question as to whether he could vote in some states -- depending on the sentence, but Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has announced as chair of the Florida Clemency Board he would grant Trump clemency to vote in his home state. The most creative suggestion is that of Mark Levin, who says Trump should preserve his right to appeal to the NY Supreme Court but simultaneously go right to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Bush v. Gore, the United States Supreme Court interceded in the Florida Supreme Court's deliberations because that Court was changing the Florida voting system on the fly, thereby violating the EQUAL PROTECTION rights of the Florida voters; that is, the state court was establishing new standards for resolving a presidential election.
The Manhattan trial court has done worse. It has taken up a case in which there is exclusive FEDERAL JURISDICTION (involving the Federal Election Campaign Act) despite the fact that the federal agencies with authority over enforcing federal campaign laws, the Federal Election Commission and the Southern District of New York/U.S. attorney's office, declined to bring charges; where the judge is conflicted (his daughter is raising tens of millions of dollars on behalf of her Democrat Party clients); where collateral evidence has been abundant (and has no probative value); where the elements of the supposed federal offense were never articulated by the state or the Court; the imposition of a gag order on the defendant who is the future Republican nominee for president in the midst of the federal campaign for president; and so forth. Moreover, this state court could have easily avoided influencing and interfering with the federal presidential election merely by setting a later time for the case, if the court actually believed it somehow had merit. After all, the state waited years to bring its case.
Therefore, there is not only a federal constitutional equal protection violation, in that this state trial court has purposefully interposed itself into the federal presidential election without authority or jurisdiction but has also violated the federal constitutionally protected due process rights of the future Republican nominee for president. Furthermore, the voters are to determine the federal election outcome without the interference of a state court attempting to influence the result.
If President Trump is found guilty of any of the thirty-four charges, I would strongly encourage his attorneys to seek an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court based, at least in significant part, on Bush v. Gore.
Effect on Trump’s Reelection
Within 24 hours of the verdict, almost $53 million was donated to Trump, about a third of it reportedly from new donors. Some donations were small, some were big, Elon Musk and other very wealthy Americans threw their support to Trump, including Sequoia Founder Shaun Maguire, who donated $300,000. In a long explanation he told how he had changed his mind about Trump and why this is “one of the most important elections of my lifetime.”
The great Iowahawk (David Burge) thinks the Democrats’ idea that they can beat Trump through lawfare is absurd: “This is wishful thinking on the level of ‘hey let’s trap Godzilla with the high voltage lines’”
Benny Johnson’s crew did a fun video takeoff on the movie It’s a Wonderful Life, portraying the groundswell of donations to Trump like the townspeople pouring money in to save Jimmy Stewart and his bank.
The Daily Mail for one ran a poll revealing the conviction increased Trump’s lead over President Biden.
All in all, these lawfare schemes strike me as dangerous to the country but as self-defeating to the Democrats as any Wile E. Coyote scheme to catch the roadrunner.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/06/the_trumped_up_conviction_and_its_consequences.html
Heartlanders Weigh in on Trump Conviction
Party-elites still do not understand the mindset of flyover folks.
by Sarah Cowgill | Jun 2, 2024 |
Heartlanders took a beat Thursday, May 30, 2024, a little past five o’clock, and listened to the announcement that former President Donald Trump had been convicted of 34 felony counts in a New York courtroom. Most reactions were of astonishment that something so un-American could take place in the land of the free. Others reacted with anger and renewed passion to get the man elected in 2024. But in the back of everyone’s mind was the idea that the future of this country as we know it may just have been obliterated by political lawfare.
Ironically, the verdict came down on the feast day of St. Joan of Arc, a figure revered as a pillar of strength in the face of political persecution.
The Path Forward
Discussions immediately turned to how Trump may find a path forward. Hoosier Gene Wolanin believes nothing will stop Trump from taking back the country. “He’ll win. If he must, he can pardon himself later or leave it as a battle scar,” Wolanin said, though “battle scar” seems the much more likely outcome since a president can only pardon federal crimes. He would have to be governor of New York to pardon himself in this case.
Liberty Nation’s Scott Cosenza explained what’s next: “Donald Trump’s defense has an abundance of pathways that may lead to a successful appeal. Lead defense attorney Todd Blanche filed a motion for acquittal immediately after the guilty verdict, which Merchan just as quickly denied. That’s the last time Merchan will be deciding such matters, however. Future appeals from Trump will be in state appellate courts and, eventually, federal court if needed.”
In Colorado, Debbe Yepsen Wallace was Gobsmacked by the results: “I find the Dems guilty of political persecution utilizing the American DOJ, and they will pay at the ballot box. If I wasn’t MAGA before, I am now. Look around. So are many, many others.”
The sentencing has been scheduled for July 11, just days before the Republican National Committee convention. Retired farmer Steve McIntosh of Williamsport, IN, wasn’t surprised: “I’d lay odds that they’ll try and give him jail time so he can’t attend his own official nomination.” Ann Whitmire-Cunningham in Midland, TX, just advised Trump: “Never give up.”
Frenemies Speak Out on Trump
Republicans weren’t the only ones to speak out against the verdict. RFK Jr. was disappointed in the state of New York for pursuing such “profoundly undemocratic” political warfare. During a crypto conference, he commented: “I think it’s a mistake for the Democratic Party. I think the Democratic Party believes it has a candidate that can’t beat President Trump and that they need to do it in the court. I think that’s bad for our country, I think it’s bad for democracy, and I think it’s politically going to backfire on them.”
Shaun Maguire is a former Hillary Clinton supporter and partner at Sequoia Capital. After the verdict, he whipped out the checkbook and donated $300,000 to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. “The media will probably demonize me, as they have so many others before me. But despite this, I still believe it’s the right thing to do. I refuse to live in a society where people are afraid to speak.”
Shirley Hartley, in Grand Prairie, TX, became an instant friend of Maguire, saying, “Thank you for trying to stop this madness in our country.”
“And just like that… A former President of the United States has been hounded and found guilty by biased Democrats,” Rob Schneider, the Saturday Night Live and Deuce Bigalow star, posted on X. He went on to plead for a non-violent reaction, saying, “Now the Republicans will have to retaliate against Democrats when they regain power. I appeal to ALL AMERICANS TO REFRAIN FROM VIOLENCE.”
How the People Reacted
Saul Greatman in Nashville, TN, spoke to the Hollywood actor: “Notice how we didn’t burn down any cities last night because we didn’t like the outcome? Instead, we raised the man $52.8 million.”
After the verdict, an avalanche of donations rocked the Trump campaign. So much so the site crashed, but when it was all said and done, Trump raked in almost $53 million. “In the 24 hours since Crooked Joe Biden and his New York henchmen got their sham trial verdict, the Trump Campaign has raised $52.8 million through the online digital fundraising platform,” the Trump campaign wrote. “THAT’S MORE THAN $2 MILLION PER HOUR!”
David Collingsworth of Tyler, TX, sees the fuel rolling in from Trump supporters and cheered: “Get on TRUMP TRAIN! Best President the US of A ever had! He will MAGA!”
Mary Peterson of Dunnell, WI, wants Trump to keep going, as well. “He needs to pick his running mate and cabinet and let them go out and campaign,” she said. “This is disgraceful what the Democrats have been allowed to do to this man. Shameful.”
https://www.libertynation.com/heartlanders-weigh-in-on-trump-conviction/
Decoding the Soul of the Nation Narrative
Political soundbites and subtle manipulation.
by Mark Angelides | Jun 2, 2024
President Joe Biden brought back his poll-tested “soul of the nation” refrain just last week. Delivering his Memorial Day speech, he said, “Our democracy is more than just a system of government, it’s the very soul of America.” It has been alluded to time and again during the course of his presidency and especially his campaign for re-election. So what is this elusive and ineffable “soul” to which he repeatedly refers?
Purposeful Ambiguity
The Biden administration has unleashed a swath of pledges — from student debt forgiveness and DACA recipient health bonuses to marijuana deregulation — with any number of subsidy-based policies thrown into the mix, all in an effort to persuade varying demographic voting groups that his party is on their side. Notably, each of these taxpayer-funded commitments is aimed at voting blocs that appear to be drifting away from their usually reliable Democratic support. Is this the soul of the nation? Taxpayer largesse on issues that affect the few?
Biden made clear in his 2022 address – coincidentally entitled “Battle for the Soul of the Nation” – that unity was not his goal. Standing in front of Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, flanked by US Marines and draped in blood-red lighting, the president decried the “white supremacists and extremists” who opposed his policies, denouncing Donald Trump and his supporters over and over again.
So, rest assured this elusive soul of the nation is certainly not unity.
Perhaps Team Biden was referring to something more intangible, even indefinable? If something remains undefined, no one can accuse you of not defending it, promoting it, or doing your level best to save it.
The president uses the terms soul of the nation and democracy interchangeably. He says our democracy is on the line, we need to save democracy, all calls to rescue this supposed “democracy.” Strange words, indeed, for a constitutional republic. But why do Biden and his cohorts pointedly use this descriptor instead of the correct one? Part of that rationale could be simply that a constitutional republic sounds more like “Republican” and democracy sounds more like the “Democratic” Party. And yet, it may go even deeper.
Decrying the threat to “democracy” creates an historic link to Ancient Greece and the early days of Athenian democracy, the fount from which much of our modern thought, and in fact our claim to a lineage of Western civilization, springs. By conflating today’s political fracas with the rise and struggle of the West, Team Biden is saying essentially that the whole of Western civilization and history is on the brink. Yes, a grandiose claim, for sure, but when has a lifelong politician ever shrunk from hyperbole?
Soul of the Nation
So, what is this indescribable soul of the nation? It may well be something that the average American can answer more accurately and honestly than politicians of any stripe. Perhaps it is the people of the nation, living free, trying their best to get along without the restraint of an overreaching government that seeks to limit their liberties in the name of an agenda as alien to traditional American values as it is to common sense.
In the end, the soul of the nation might well be the right for individuals to determine what they believe about the world without interference or judgment. But it would take a politician of unique bravery to echo that sentiment.
https://www.libertynation.com/decoding-the-soul-of-the-nation-narrative/
Trump Verdict FAQ: Navigating the Post-Conviction Confusion
From voting to representing America abroad – what would being a felon mean for a second Trump term?
by James Fite | Jun 2, 2024
For the first time in American history, a former president – who also happens to be a current candidate – has been convicted on felony charges. This puts the nation in an unprecedented electoral situation and brings up many questions that have never before needed answering. Some are clear-cut; others not so much. Liberty Nation explores both kinds in a list of frequently asked questions – a Trump Verdict FAQ, if you will. From voting to representing America abroad, what will being a felon mean for Donald Trump if he wins a second term?
Can Trump still Run? Can He Pardon Himself?
As we navigate the post-conviction confusion, let’s begin with perhaps the two most straightforward questions to answer: Can Donald Trump still run for president as a convicted felon, and can he pardon himself if he wins? The short answers are yes and no – in this case – respectively.
The US Constitution outlines eligibility requirements for a potential president, and nothing short of an amendment can change that. To mount a campaign for the Oval Office, one need only be a natural-born citizen of the United States who has lived in this nation for the last 14 years and is 35 or older. Since presidential term limits are also built into the Constitution thanks to the 22nd Amendment, no one who has served two terms can run again – but that rule doesn’t apply to Trump, who lost re-election after his first to the current president, Joe Biden. And this particular question isn’t even new. In 1920, former Democrat and founder of the Socialist Party Eugene V. Debs ran for president – and won nearly a million votes – as a convicted felon who was at that time incarcerated on a ten-year prison sentence. He didn’t win, but that’s hardly the point. He was legally allowed to run.
So, if the former president is constitutionally allowed to reclaim his job, could he simply pardon himself and clear this whole mess up? The answer would be yes if this case had been federal. However, as this was a state case in New York, only the governor of New York can issue a pardon – something the anti-Trump Democrat Kathy Hochul seems highly unlikely to do.
Can He Still Vote?
Another side-effect of a felony conviction is often the loss of voting rights – and, while his single vote wouldn’t make much difference to the outcome, there’s a remarkable irony to a person running for office who can’t even vote for himself. So can he? The answer to this question is a bit more nuanced. Voting laws vary by state. In Florida, where the former president is registered to vote, a convicted felon is allowed to vote as long as they aren’t presently incarcerated and have completed the terms of their sentence – meaning that any fines, restitution, community service, or time on parole or probation must also be completely satisfied.
However, the Sunshine State also defers to the laws of other states when Floridians are convicted of crimes elsewhere. New York only stops felons from voting if they’re in prison on Election Day. So, if Trump is sentenced to anything but prison time – or if his sentence is deferred or delayed for any reason – he should be able to vote, even in Florida.
Alternatively, the former president could petition to have his voting rights restored in Florida through executive clemency, which would require the approval of Governor Ron DeSantis and two state cabinet members. A felon is allowed to seek this restoration of voting rights even if the conviction came from another state, and Trump might pursue this option just to alleviate any lingering questions.
Can He Visit Countries That Ban Felons?
As a convicted felon, Donald Trump may be refused entry to as many as 38 countries. While many of these countries, like Iran, probably aren’t likely to be found on his travel itinerary, some could be problematic. Japan, Israel, Canada, and the United Kingdom all forbid entry by foreign felons, as do China, Australia, and many more.
New banner Liberty Nation Analysis 1If Mr. Trump loses the election in November, he’ll likely be banned from those countries indefinitely – unless a special exception is made for a former president. But if he wins and reclaims the White House, those exceptions seem more likely to occur.
George W. Bush famously had to apply for a waiver to enter Canada for an official state visit once because of a 1976 drunk driving charge to which he pled guilty. It was a misdemeanor, not a felony, but still, he had to apply for the waiver. Canada will host the G7 summit in 2025. Would our neighbor to the north deny a sitting US president entry for such an event? Well, if that president is Trump and the Canadian leader is Justin Trudeau or someone like him, perhaps.
What Happens to the Other Cases If He’s Elected?
As explained by a Nixon-era policy memo, the Justice Department does not indict sitting presidents. This policy and the reason behind it—that doing so would interfere with the president’s ability to perform his duties—would seem applicable from the moment Trump is declared the winner of the general election, should it go that way.
Another way of looking at it is that the DOJ is led by the attorney general – who is appointed by and can be replaced by the president. A Trump-appointed AG seems unlikely to do anything other than drop the two federal cases against Trump.
Did the Trump Verdict Bring Unity to the GOP?
Polling in the wake of the Trump trial shows the conviction was something of a mixed bag. Most people – regardless of political party – have their minds made up and say this conviction changes nothing; they’re either for or against Trump, whether he was found guilty or not. A poll from NPR showed that 15% of independents said the conviction made them more likely to vote for Trump, while 11% said it made them less likely to – that’s a net gain for the former president, not a loss.
Another poll from Morning Consult showed that just 15% of Republican voters – and only 8% of self-proclaimed Trump supporters – said he should drop his campaign, meaning that the vast majority of the people who were going to vote for him before probably still are. A Reuters/Ipsos survey showed that 56% of Republican voters said the conviction doesn’t change their vote, while 35% said it would make them more likely to support him.
Polling aside, people are already voting with their money. Hours after the conviction, the Trump campaign’s donation site crashed due to heavy traffic. Over the 24 hours immediately after the trial, Donald Trump raised almost $53 million – much of that comes from small-dollar and even first-time donors. Not all donors are small, though, as wealthy business owners are also backing Trump. Shaun Maguire, a partner at Sequoia Capital, immediately donated $300,000, a move applauded by other corporate leaders like David Sacks of Craft Ventures and even Elon Musk. The conviction also proved to move multi-billionaire casino magnate Miriam Adelson off the fence. Adelson, who bankrolled a pro-Trump super PAC in 2020 to the tune of about $90 million, has now reportedly pledged $100 million to the PAC, Preserve America, on behalf of Trump in the 2024 election.
The Trump verdict also seems to have galvanized support for the former president among Republicans in Congress – even many who previously had supported other candidates. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, for example, had distanced himself from Trump in the wake of January 6, 2021, but he reversed course after the conviction, saying, “this verdict is a disgrace, and this trial should never have happened.” Additionally, eight Republican senators vowed Saturday to oppose any increase to DOJ funding and all of Biden’s nominees in response. While it may not have been one of the most frequently asked, this question remains: Did the Trump verdict bring unity to the GOP? Right now, the answer certainly seems to be yes. As Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) put it: “Congratulations, progressives, you’ve just guaranteed Trump’s election.”
https://www.libertynation.com/trump-verdict-faq-navigating-the-post-conviction-confusion/
Sunday's Energy Absurdity: New Super Serious 'Study' by Super Serious Surrey U Finds Wind Propaganda Highly Profitable
David Blackmon
Jun 02, 2024
Honestly, when I read something as irredeemably stupid as this story, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. It’s the sort of thing that makes you seriously question the future viability of the human race.
Share
A story published in [checks notes] Energy Live News on Saturday cites a new study by the University of Surrey, which - and I did check - is an honest-to-goodness institution of [sort of] higher learning in the UK. The study, no doubt paid for by government grants since it falls right in line with prevailing climate alarmist propaganda, encourages us to believe that the Fukushima catastrophe - which, remember, was caused by a major earthquake and resultant tidal wave - could have been “averted” if only the Japanese had built some massive offshore wind farms.
No, really, I swear I am not making that up. How could anybody ever dream of making something like that up? C’mon.
I swear to you this is a real excerpt from this preposterous story:
A review conducted by researchers at the University of Surrey has concluded that offshore wind farms could have averted the Fukushima nuclear disaster by maintaining the cooling systems and preventing a meltdown.
The study highlights that wind farms are less vulnerable to earthquakes than nuclear power plants.
Suby Bhattacharya, Professor of Geomechanics at the University of Surrey, emphasised that wind power provides abundant clean energy and can enhance the safety and reliability of other facilities.
The review indicates that wind energy is now more cost-effective due to reduced construction costs and improved methods to minimise environmental impact.
The report finds that new wind farms can produce energy at a significantly lower cost than new nuclear power stations.
In the UK, the lifetime cost of generating wind power has dropped from £160/MWh to £44/MWh, covering all expenses from planning to decommissioning.
Professor Bhattacharya said: “What makes wind so attractive is that the fuel is free, and the cost of building turbines is falling. There is enough of it blowing around the world to power the planet 18 times over.
[End]
Ok, so, have you figured out the scam here yet? What this “study” amounts to is a free government-funded ad for Big Wind, nothing more than yet another un-serious parroting of prevailing propaganda concocted by the wind industry itself.
This is your tax dollars at work, UK citizens, and it should make you furious with rage.
[Thanks to subscriber Richard Nielson for tipping me off to this mindnumbingly preposterous story!]
That is all.
https://blackmon.substack.com/p/sundays-energy-absurdity-new-super?publication_id=712558&post_id=145223107&isFreemail=true&r=rd9j8&triedRedirect=true
With US OK, Ukraine Hits Russia's Belgorod in Massive Rocket Attack
Sunday, 02 June 2024 07:27 AM EDT
After gaining approval from the Biden administration, Ukraine reportedly used U.S. High-Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) to hit targets in the Russian city of Belgorod, 20 miles north of the Russia-Ukraine border in southern Russia.
“This is a welcome step that will allow us now to better protect Ukraine and Ukrainians from Russian terror and attempts to expand the war,” Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote right before the attack, Forbes reported.
The onslaught included potentially dozens of 660-pound rockets, each ranging as far as 57 miles with 50 pounds of high explosives, raining on Belgorod, according to the Forbes report.
State media claimed air-defense batteries shot down 14 rockets, and there is some evidence of rocket fragments on the ground, Forbes and other reports indicated. It’s unclear how much damage the raid inflicted — and, more to the point, how much damage it inflicted on military targets.
Other independent military observers confirmed the use of HIMARS.
"Pieces of Guided-Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) Rockets launched from M142 HIMARS have been Discovered in several Locations across the Belgorod Region of Western Russia this morning, following what is believed to have been the First Use by the Ukrainian Armed Forces," OSINdefender reported on X, formerly known as Twitter.
"The footage shows how at least eight missiles were fired from the M142 HIMARS installation south of Vovchansk, after which the air alert signals sounded in Russia," OSINTdefender wrote.
A local official in Belgorod died when some ammunition detonated, while six people were injured in Ukrainian shelling of the southern Russian region, Belgorod's governor said on Sunday.
Igor Nechiporenko, deputy head of Korochansky district administration in Belgorod, was killed as a result of ammunition detonating, Belgorod Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov said on Telegram.
"I offer my most sincere and deepest condolences to the family and loved ones," Gladkov said.
Germany joined the United States on Friday in authorizing Ukraine to hit some targets on Russian soil with the long-range weapons they are supplying — a significant policy change that comes as depleted Ukrainian troops are losing ground in the war.
Ukrainian officials have expressed frustration over restrictions on the use of Western weapons — especially as the border region of Kharkiv has endured a Russian onslaught this month that has stretched Kyiv's outgunned and outmanned forces.
Both Germany and the U.S. specifically authorized the use of weapons to defend Kharkiv, whose capital city of the same name lies only 20 kilometers (12 miles) from Russia. Russian ballistic missiles slammed into an apartment building in the city overnight, Ukrainian officials said, killing at least six people.
Beyond offering Ukraine a chance of better protecting Kharkiv by targeting Russian capabilities in the region, it’s not clear what effect the easing of restrictions might have on the direction of the conflict in what is proving to be a critical period. But it drew a furious response from Moscow and warnings it could draw Russia into war with NATO.
The German government said Ukraine can use weapons it supplies against positions just over the border, from where Russia launches its attacks on Kharkiv. A day earlier, U.S. President Joe Biden gave Kyiv a green light to strike back with American weapons at Russian military assets targeting the region, according to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
Blinken said Kyiv had asked Washington for permission to use U.S.-supplied weapons against the Kremlin's troops amassing on the Russian side of the border for attacks inside Ukraine. Biden's approval was for that purpose, Blinken said at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Prague.
U.S. officials, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter, stressed that the U.S. policy calling on Ukraine not to use American-provided ATACMS or long-range missiles and other munitions to strike offensively inside Russia has not changed.
In response, Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, said Friday that “Ukraine and its NATO allies will receive such a devastating response that the alliance won’t be able to avoid entering the conflict” — an eventuality that Western governments have ruled out.
Western leaders have hesitated to ease the restrictions on their weapons because of the risk it would provoke Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has repeatedly warned that the West’s direct involvement could put the world on a path to nuclear conflict. Last week, Russia said military drills involving tactical nuclear weapons had begun.
But as Russia has recently gained the battlefield initiative in some parts of the 1,000-kilometer (600-mile) front line, some Western leaders have pushed for a policy change allowing Kyiv to strike military bases inside Russia with sophisticated long-range weapons provided by its Western partners.
The Kremlin’s bigger and better-equipped army is exploiting Ukrainian shortages in troops and ammunition after a lengthy delay in U.S. military aid. Western Europe’s inadequate military production has also slowed crucial deliveries to Ukraine.
The German government statement noted that, in recent weeks, Russia has prepared, coordinated, and carried out attacks on the Kharkiv region, in particular from areas just over the border in Russia.
“Together we are convinced that Ukraine has the right under international law to defend itself against these attacks,” the statement said. “For this, it can also use the weapons delivered for that purpose in accordance with its international legal commitments, including the ones delivered by us,” it added.
The question of whether to allow Ukraine to hit targets on Russian soil with Western-supplied weaponry has been a delicate issue since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, 2022.
NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said Friday he supported lifting the limits on Ukraine's use of Western weaponry, saying it's “a matter of upholding international law — Ukraine’s right to self-defense."
“Putin wanted to deter the NATO allies from supporting Ukraine. But we are not and we will not be deterred,” Stoltenberg said.
Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billström noted that his country had not restricted Ukraine's use of its weapons at all, while Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said Rome won’t let Kyiv use Italian weapons outside its territory.
In Moscow, Medvedev repeated Russian warnings that the steps being taken could set NATO and Russia on the path to a nuclear conflict. “It’s not an attempt to scare or any sort of a nuclear bluff,” he said.
Russia’s newly appointed defense minister, Andrei Belousov, claimed Friday that Russian troops are “advancing in all tactical directions,” including in the Kharkiv region where he said they have pushed Ukrainian forces back by as much as 9 kilometers (5 miles). Russian forces captured 28 towns and villages over the past month, he said.
Overall since the start of the year, Russian forces have taken control of 880 square kilometers (340 square miles) of territory, he added.
It was not possible to verify his battlefield claims.
Overnight into Friday, Russia launched five ballistic missiles at Kharkiv, Ukraine’s air force said. One of them struck a residential building close to midnight and was followed by another missile 25 minutes later that hit first responders, according to regional Gov. Oleh Syniehubov.
Six people were killed, according to Syniehubov, and at least 25 were wounded.
Ukrainian officials have previously accused Russia of targeting rescue workers by hitting residential buildings with two consecutive missiles — the first one to draw emergency crews to the scene and the second one to wound or kill them. Russia used the method in Syria’s civil war.
Apart from Kharkiv, Moscow's troops are pressing in the Donetsk region further south and are assembling a force for an expected attack in the Sumy region further north, according to Ukrainian officials.
https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/russia-ukraine-war-kharkiv-biden-missiles/2024/06/02/id/1167133/?ns_mail_uid=110c4f27-b39e-4490-8c9e-becd156886f8&ns_mail_job=DM631659_06022024&s=acs&dkt_nbr=0101027mqpov
Bernie Kerik to Newsmax: 'Morons' Like Boston Mayor Wu 'Cowering to Left'
By Eric Mack | Saturday, 01 June 2024 10:29 AM EDT
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has doubling down on what many are calling anti-policing policies amid a crime wave, and former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik warned on Newsmax of the deleterious results to come.
"These things consistently fail, and that's what's going to happen in Boston," Kerik told "America Right Now." "The craziness of this is that you still have morons like this mayor in Boston that are going to try it because they're cowering to the left and these Marxist lunatics."
Kerik told guest host Mike Carter: "Just look at the empirical evidence after the 2020 defund the police movement waged by the now-exposed Black Lives Matter movement and antifa group that used threats of violence to turn public opinion against law and order.
"Minneapolis was one of the first cities to do this, right? 'We're going to defund, we're going to get rid of, we're going to demilitarize.' Their crime rate, their murder rate went through the roof.
"And within six months, they had to start retracting. Within a year, they had to bring back the cops they got rid of. They had to recruit new. They had to institute new laws and policies.
"They had to reverse every single thing — and more than that — they had abolished or attempted to abolish."
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/bernie-kerik-crime-police/2024/06/01/id/1167086/?ns_mail_uid=110c4f27-b39e-4490-8c9e-becd156886f8&ns_mail_job=DM631146_06012024&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010502gml1wu
Kangaroos Ask People To Stop Unfairly Comparing Them To U.S. Justice System
AUSTRALIA — Kangaroos hosted a press conference today calling for a stop to demeaning comparisons to the United States justice system.
"Please, we beg you - stop comparing the U.S. legal system to a 'kangaroo court'. It's insulting to kangaroos everywhere," said kangaroo spokeswoman Savannah Buttercup. "We are proud of our superior judicial system and would never, ever behave like those clowns in New York."
According to sources, kangaroos across the globe were infuriated by the sudden deluge of people comparing their justice system to America. "It's downright offensive. We kangaroos have a very fair system," explained Buttercup. "Misdemeanors result in getting your ears boxed. Felonies will get you a kick, square in the squishy regions. Every kangaroo is subject to the same laws, no matter if you're red or grey, tree-kangaroo or wallaby. Our system is light years ahead of the clown show that is America."
At publishing time, a group of clowns had held a press conference calling on the kangaroos to stop comparing their shows to the U.S. legal system.
https://babylonbee.com/news/kangaroos-ask-people-to-stop-unfairly-comparing-them-to-us-justice-system
Your name is Merchan!
By Silvio Canto, Jr.
It took me a while to understand the expression “Your name is mud.” It’d come up when I was playing sandlot baseball or learning about football. Someone would scream it, and I had no idea why such an expression would be used in a sunny day.
So eventually my wonderful 6th-grade teacher (Miss Jones) explained the story of Dr. Mudd and John Wilkes Boothe. She said that it was something like “You are discredited or in disgrace. The very mention of your name produces scorn.” Thank you, Miss Jones, but I’ll confess that explaining this in Spanish to my mother was challenging. My mom’s response was, why would someone have a name like Mudd? I told her that it was “Mudd” with two “Ds,” not the stuff on the ground.
So let’s come to the present and talk about that fellow Judge Merchan. My prediction is that we will one day say that your name is as good as Merchan. It will be how we describe corrupt judges.
Let’s check this from Jonathan Turley:
Bragg’s legal vision for non-objective indictments was greatly advanced by Judge Juan Merchan, who will allow the jury to reach different rulings on what crime is actually evident in Bragg’s paint splatters.
Merchan has ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the second crime. This means there could be three groups of four jurors, with one believing that there was a conspiracy to conceal a state election violation, another believing there was a federal election violation (which Bragg cannot enforce), and a third believing there was a tax violation, respectively. Nonetheless, Merchan will treat that as a unanimous verdict.
In other words, they could look at the indictment and see vastly different shapes, but still send Trump to prison on their interpretations.
Translation: Judge to jury: Come back to me with a conviction, no matter how you arrive at the conclusion. Talk about having one strike zone for one team and one for the other.
As I understand, Dr. Mudd’s name was eventually cleared. I don’t think it will be so easy for Judge Merchan, a man who should explain to the New York Bar just what in the world he was doing from the bench. Or at least Judge Merchan should explain it to the Supreme Court when the Trump case gets to them.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/your_name_is_merchan.html
The view from 30,000 feet above the bogus Trump trial and conviction *UPDATED*
By Andrea Widburg
So what happened to Joe Biden's vaunted 'address to the nation' on President Trump's trial outcome?
By Monica Showalter
Democrat devolution
By Eric Utter
“My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. Where it’s safe to say what’s on your mind, especially when everyone disagrees. Where it’s safe to believe what you believe, especially when everyone else’s beliefs stand elsewhere.” — Adlai Stevenson
Adlai Stevenson was a Democrat. (In fact, he ran for president in 1952 and 1956, losing twice to Dwight Eisenhower.)
Hard to believe today when the Donkey Party is composed almost entirely of radical leftists bent on suppressing or eliminating any belief, thought, or utterance that it fears could possibly tend to lessen its grip on power. It’s not just “The Squad,” or the likes of Adam Schiff who are keen to stymie, cancel, erase, or shut down opposing viewpoints. Nearly all of today’s Democrats disdain the First Amendment in their tyrannical lust for eternal power and control, President Biden chief among them.
Another Democrat, Harry Truman, once stated: “We need not fear the expression of ideas—we do need to fear their suppression.”
And the person who many claim founded the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, solemnly averred: “I have sworn, on the altar of God, eternal hostility to all forms of tyranny over the minds of man.”
Today, the “Democratic” president is trying to imprison his Republican rival. College campuses are hermetically sealed off from anyone with an allegedly “conservative” or traditional viewpoint. Federal agencies warn media outlets against telling the truth. Speaking out against the pandemic-induced lockdowns, social distancing requirements, mask mandates, or COVID-19(84) vaccines, could lead to your being mocked, shadow-banned, or pink-slipped depending on your circumstances. Challenging “climate-change” orthodoxy will get you branded a “Denier” with a capital, crimson ‘D’—and possibly labeled a nut case. Disagree with the rapidly evolving and expanding “trans” agenda? Don’t believe in the artificial hormone-altering or genital mutilation of our children? Prepare to be at least figuratively assaulted by the most hyper-sensitive, close-minded, and thuggish identity group that has ever existed.
Dare to speak up for your beliefs? If you happen to be a straight, white, Christian male that believes in the Founding values—or a proud, independent-thinking black person that doesn’t toe the Democrat Party line—prepare to have your voice stolen, silenced, rendered mute. The Party doesn’t like the former. Period. And won’t abide the latter straying from the ideological plantation on which they intend to keep them. (Democrats, eventually rather successfully, attempted to institute mental slavery almost immediately upon Republicans ending physical slavery.) As Biden said, “You ain’t black” if you have trouble deciding between him and Trump.
Facebook acquiesces to federal government pressure to help sway the 2020 presidential election. Big Tech and Big Social Media censor—or worse—any sentiment with which they disagree. My own blog has long been demonetized, shadow-banned, and otherwise stunted and harassed on its Google platform. This from the company whose motto was once, “Don’t be evil.” The truth is, most progressive/leftist/Marxist/communist media outlets and platforms love to be evil. They aren’t big on God, but they are big on themselves, money…and tyranny.
Those of us who have been the victims of Big Tech/social media hypocrisy, intolerance, and virtue-signaling vitriol typically receive messages such as, “a recent post doesn’t conform to our community standards.” I assume they mean the “standards” that see their communities awash in drug and alcohol overdoses, homeless people, illegal aliens, hopelessness, and crime. Oh, and piles of human feces.
If one speaks out too strongly against even that, there may be consequences. But I will continue to do so anyway. And not under an assumed name. I know full well that I can be punished for this…because I already have been. So bleeping what?!
If enough of us speak out—or try to—regardless of the consequences, those that would silence us may someday find their power and control waning, not waxing.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/democrat_devolution.html
Nothing, and I mean nothing, can stop Trump!
By Amil Imani
In the annals of American history, moments of undeniable momentum and change are marked by a singular certainty: Nothing can stop what is coming. Such is the case as we stand on the precipice of a transformative period in our nation’s journey. The echoes of past struggles and triumphs resonate through the corridors of power, yet the future beckons with a promise of renewal and rebirth.
Let us venture bravely into the heart of the storm, wading into the forces that are shaping our destiny, and a big salute to the indomitable spirit that fuels the march towards a brighter tomorrow. Amidst all these clashes and cacophony, one truth emerges clear and unyielding: The momentum of progress cannot be halted.
Let’s face it: In the face of adversity, Donald J. Trump stands tall, unyielding in the face of a rigged political witch hunt. This false conviction on charges stemming from an unjust trial marks a pivotal moment in American history, one that is more than a raging debate within the nation. Amidst the turmoil, Trump’s resilience and unwavering commitment to his principles shine through for the millions of Americans who share his vision for the future.
The trial that has led to Trump’s conviction has been met with skepticism and controversy all around, with a big question mark on its fairness and impartiality. It is beyond mere assertion that the proceedings were part of a larger political witch hunt, and the entire ordeal is nothing short of a politically motivated attempt to silence him. The raids on his home, the arrest, and the subsequent conviction all lead to outrage and disbelief, fueling fears of a two-tiered justice system where the powerful are exempt from the laws they enforce upon others.
Amidst the chaos, Trump’s call to action is clear and compelling. We all have to rally behind him to push back against an unprecedented attack on the freedoms of countless Americans. His words are a rallying cry, a clarion call to unite and fight for the values that he believes define America’s greatness. With the White House within reach once again, Trump is asking us to stand shoulder to shoulder with him to ensure that Joe Biden understands the strength and resolve of those who oppose him.
Trump’s vision for America is one of unity, strength, and prosperity. He promises to lead the charge against what he perceives as the forces seeking to undermine the nation’s very fabric. By uniting under his banner, Trump believes that his supporters can turn the tide, ensuring that Joe Biden’s chances of securing a second term come to an abrupt end. This is not merely a battle for the presidency; it is a struggle for the soul of America to ensure that the country remains true to its founding principles.
The choice before us is clear as we stand on the brink of a historic moment. Will we allow the voices of dissent and division to drown out the calls for unity and strength? Or will we rise to the occasion, standing firm with Donald J. Trump as he fights to reclaim the White House and restore America to its rightful place as a beacon of hope and opportunity for the world?
This is our moment. This is our chance to make history. With Trump at the helm, leading the charge against injustice and for the preservation of American ideals, we have the opportunity to ensure that Joe Biden regrets ever challenging the will of the people. Together, we can make America great again.
The spirit of the American people shines brightest. As we approach the critical moment of truth on November 5th, the real power lies not in the halls of justice or the chambers of Congress but in the hands of every voter nationwide. Joe Biden and the Democrats may seek to manipulate the narrative and use trial outcomes as tools to sway public opinion. Still, the true measure of a leader—and the fate of our nation—will be determined by the will of the people at the ballot box.
This election is not just another vote but a referendum on the essence of what America stands for. It tests whether we will allow the political elite to dictate our destiny or if we, the citizens, will take control of our future. The choice before us is stark: continue down the path of division and mistrust or unite behind a leader who promises to restore the pillars of strength, freedom, and prosperity that made America great.
Donald Trump has stood firm against the challenges thrown at him, refusing to be silenced or deterred from his mission to make America great again. Now, it falls to us—the voters—to echo his call to action. On November 5th, let us send a resounding message to Washington: We will not be swayed by sham trials or manipulated by political games. Our verdict will be cast in ballots, and we will choose our path forward together.
Vote Trump. Stand with him. Let our collective voice be heard, loud and clear, as we reaffirm our commitment to the principles that bind us as Americans. This is our moment to seize, our chance to shape the future. United, we can ensure that Joe Biden and the Democrats understand that America’s true power resides with its people and that on November 5th, we will make our voices heard.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/nothing_and_i_mean_nothing_can_stop_trump.html
The new Mandela effect… or maybe the Martha Stewart effect?
By Nick Lopez
A Manhattan jury handed President Trump the black vote on Thursday. All he has to do to keep it is not become a jailhouse snitch.
Orange really is the new black, just ask Martha Stewart. Her street cred shot through the roof after she did her time. Suddenly she was flanked by Snoop Dogg and co-hosting a show with him.
Jail time is a badge of honor amongst the people who are streetwise. Doing time means you are “stand up” and didn’t cut a deal with the DA to turn in your friends for immunity.
Anyone who has been to prison commands respect automatically from the more legally impacted (Illinois’s wording, not mine) communities. Jeezy, DMX, 50 Cent; jail only enhanced their popularity.
Black America roots for an underdog who’s being prosecuted by “the man,” even if that person was the man at one point. They didn’t really think OJ was innocent, they just wanted him to be “not guilty”…regardless of “justice.”
OJ’s acquittal was really just part of the Rodney King reparations package. It didn’t matter whether or not he did it, he didn’t do it.
It was payback for all the times an innocent black man got railroaded. For the times whitey killed his wife, and framed the gardener. For the times white men broke a black man out of jail so they could take matters into their own hands.
My title choice has less to do with CERN (and any universes we may have been transported to), and more to do with the fact that ”the man“ jailed Nelson Mandela…and he became president anyway.
The Democrats just martyred Donald Trump in a very modern way.
It didn’t work out for those who wanted to destroy an American institution when they did it to Martha Stewart, it didn’t work out for Marcia Clark in that respect either…it won’t work out now.
The conviction of Donald Trump is going to backfire spectacularly. Unless they rig the election.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/the_new_mandela_effect_or_maybe_the_martha_stewart_effect.html
Vote for the convicted felon
By Noel S. Williams
To Democrats, it isn’t how you play but whether you win or lose
By DC Larson
Bearing Witness To The Downfall Of Our Constitutional Republic
By Allan J. Feifer
Can the Justice System Recover from the Trump Verdict?
The jury pool is about to get a lot wider.
by Mark Angelides | Jun 1, 2024
If political donations and media coverage are any indication, former President Donald Trump has not been too badly damaged by the 34 felony convictions handed down by a Manhattan jury. In fact, a number of high-profile independent and Libertarian voters have determined that the only suitable response to what they see as a corruption of the justice system is to send Trump back to the Oval Office. And this leaves a question hanging in the air: Do all the people who intend to vote for Donald J. Trump in November now see the nation as a place where laws are unequally and discriminatorily applied?
A Paradox Problem for Justice
The system of justice is only held in respect and regard if its offices and decisions are accepted as sacrosanct. When one starts pulling at stray threads – or, indeed, calling the balls and strikes differently – it demeans its value and builds distrust.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) made just such a point, posting shortly after the Trump verdict that “America is a nation built upon the rule of law. The jury has spoken and carefully rendered a decision. Responsible leadership requires the verdict to be respected.”
Sober words, certainly. But how does such a position mesh with the near-constant refrain that the rulings against the Biden administration in courts across the land are at best spurious and, at worst, the efforts of out-of-control judges? Consider President Biden’s recent comments posted across social media when the Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina’s redistricting policy was not unconstitutional. “The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy. And key to that right is ensuring voters pick their elected officials – not the other way around,” he wrote. “Today’s Supreme Court decision undermines the basic principle that voting practices shouldn’t discriminate on account of race.”
And then there is the president’s reaction to the highest court determining his efforts at student loan forgiveness were not in line with the law of the land. He responded: “The Supreme Court tried to block me from relieving student debt. But they didn’t stop me. I’ve relieved student debt for over 5 million Americans. I’m going to keep going.”
So, which is it? Either we respect the rulings and accept them as just and valid, or we don’t. Picking and choosing which decisions are correct undermines the whole system on which the country relies.
A Narrative Problem
One cannot simply deride the rulings of a court one day and then hold the system up as a paragon of perfection the next. Asking the electorate to engage in cognitive dissonance to better bolster a party’s narrative is a surefire way to breed mistrust in the institutions being lauded.
On the one hand, Democrat leadership tells the nation that the courts have it right, and that questioning rulings breeds chaos. On the other, there is a decades-long trend of saying courts are biased against black Americans. Bias either exists or it doesn’t.
Fortunately for Donald Trump, his ultimate fate may not be reduced to a court decision he has declared corrupt, but rather by a result at the ballot box in November. His final judgement will come from a jury pool much wider than just 12 Manhattanites. Instead, he will be judged by a nation of his peers, and they will be the ultimate arbiters of whether the justice system can survive its current incarnation.
https://www.libertynation.com/can-the-justice-system-recover-from-the-trump-verdict/
Undaunted and Unbowed, Trump Responds to Conviction
He calls the loss in court "a badge of honor."
by Leesa K. Donner | Jun 1, 2024
The decision by a New York jury to convict former President Donald Trump of 34 felony charges may have rocked his supporters, brought jubilation to his detractors, and caused a collective gasp from the rest of the world. However, the man himself still appears to be stoically marching ahead in his quest for re-election as president of the United States.
Appearing at Trump Tower in Manhattan yesterday, May 31, the 45th president channeled Friedrich Nietzsche’s adage: “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” In framing the court case against him, Trump asserted: “I’m doing something for our Constitution. It’s very important, far beyond me. And this can’t be allowed to happen to other presidents.”
Many conservatives reacted with surprise at the swift, decisive verdict, but Mr. Trump appeared to take it in stride, almost as if he expected the jury to return with a conviction. Always the unconventional candidate, early reports are that being found guilty may be helping his quest for that elusive second term. The Daily Mail characterized it this way: “Teflon Don rides again,” noting a six-point increase in his approval ratings in a snap poll conducted by the UK news outlet. This survey of voters after the conviction provides a quick take on the pulse of the people regarding a particular event. The newspaper found that of the 403 likely voters queried, “22 percent said they now had a more favorable rating [of Trump] compared with 16 percent who said they viewed him more negatively.”
Immediately following the verdict’s reading, people flocked to Mr. Trump’s WinRed donation website – but so many came so fast that the site crashed. Within just 24 hours of Trump’s conviction, the campaign reported raising almost $53 million. Surely this is dispiriting to those who detest 45 and are rejoicing in his historic criminal felony conviction.
Trump Verdict: On the Other Hand
Yet another snap poll by YouGov conducted on the same day as the verdict shows that 50% of the people think Trump is guilty, but another 30% believe him to be innocent. Nineteen percent were unsure. The YouGov poll surveyed over 3,000 US adults.
Political analysts maintain that snap polls should be taken with a grain of salt because of the election timeline. One school of thought is that this verdict might have come too early to do lasting damage to the Trump campaign. Debates have yet to be held, conventions are still ahead, and while Mr. Biden has a declared running mate, Mr. Trump has not. Then there’s the sentencing, which is supposed to occur just four days before the Republican National Convention. All of these events will factor into where the candidates stand in November.
Democratic pollster Mark Mellman is one of those who believe the outcome of this court case ultimately won’t move the needle one way or another: “If I were betting, I’d bet on no impact — or on a flutter in the polls, followed by a return to the status quo,” he told the Los Angeles Times. His opinion was backed up by an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll just released, which found that 67% of registered voters say a guilty verdict would not change their vote.
While the hard right and left have made their decisions, this election, like most, will come down to those in the middle. The NPR poll asked: “If Donald Trump is found guilty in the hush money trial in New York, are you” more or less likely to vote for him? Fifteen percent of independents said they were more likely to vote for him, 11% said less likely, and 74% said it would make no difference.
Adding It All Up
So when you boil it all down – recognizing that these are early days in the verdict – no big flashing red light indicates that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s conviction of Trump will signal a fundamental change in the presidential election. He may rejoice over winning the battle, but the war still looms.
Plutarch wrote in 279 BC that, after having just beaten the Roman army, Greek King Pyrrhus feared what the future would hold. “If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined,” he is believed to have lamented. So significant were his losses that, despite winning the battle, the Greek king was destined to lose the greater war. Will Donald Trump’s conviction turn into a Pyrrhic victory? Trump maintains that the actual verdict will be on November 5, something all Americans can agree on.
https://www.libertynation.com/undaunted-and-unbowed-trump-responds-to-conviction/