Trump Voter Excited To See Whether He’ll Get Raided By FBI Or Gunned Down By IRS

Donald Trump will be a successful president again

“…It is unlikely that the current attempt to destroy Trump’s electability by frivolous and vexatious and defamatory officious legal harassment will generate any memorable speeches, and the former president is far from the sort of unusually virtuous person to whom moral leadership comes naturally. But he has been the most conspicuous subject of the shameful abuse of the American legal system of any political leader in that country’s history. The painful informal coalition of the Democratic left, complacent displaced country club Republicans, the woke faddists, the nihilistic hooligans, and their collective echo chamber in the addled academy and most of the morally bankrupt national American political media, all, for different reasons and with varying accuracy, feel themselves threatened by Trump. Between them, they produced the monstrous canard that he was a Russian intelligence asset, McCarthyism squared, and investigated him.

They impeached him for asking the president of Ukraine to find out if the Biden family had committed improprieties in his country, which the world now knows was an appropriate concern, and it ignored as “peaceful protests” a summer of riots and arson that killed scores of people and did $2 billion of property damage in 2020 as “Trump’s America.” Voting rules were changed in a number of states in 2020, supposedly in response to the pandemic, there was greatly expanded use of drop boxes, and the judiciary refused to hear any of the constitutional challenges Trump launched, albeit tardily, against these measures. Then, they impeached him again to remove him from office near the expiry of his term on the fatuous charge of fomenting an “insurrection,” which was the last thing he wanted.

In Joe Biden, they managed, between them all, to elevate the most incompetent administration in American history. They were like excited pee wee hockey players throwing their sticks in the air when they thought they had seen trump off, but the primaries reveal that he has a lock on the Republican Party and the polls show that he is the most favored candidate for the next presidential election. The intrusion at his home on Monday was an unspeakable tainting operation. All presidents have disputes with the federal government about ownership of some of their papers; these are matters for civil litigation and if necessary, subpoenas. An invasion of armed FBI agents and an occupation of his Florida home for over nine hours as they ordered open the door to his document room, which he had locked at their request, and rummaged through his wife’s dresses and underwear (not on her person at least), is rightly seen by all but the most psychotic Trump-haters as an outrage. The awkward official silences, contradictory leaks, and mealy-mouthed official explanations in subsequent days have been disgusting. The most authoritative voice of Trump-hate, the New York Times, has revealed that Biden told his inner circle that he wants Trump prosecuted, and that he wants Garland to pursue the former president.

I was one of those who wrote (in the Sherbrooke Record), during the Watergate affair 50 years ago that criminalizing such nonsense to tear down a president, more than a century after the only previous presidential impeachment, (Andrew Johnson), would leave the American political parties resistless against the temptation to criminalize policy differences. This was what happened in the spurious impeachments of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. This latest desperate lunge to try to prevent Trump from returning to the White House, if it is not discontinued now, will be such a disaster, it will disgrace the Democrats for 20 years. Whatever anyone thinks of Trump, compared to his enemies, he is a candidate for Mount Rushmore, (if those enemies do not, as some have threatened to do, blow up that monument because it bears the likenesses of four white presidents)…”

JULY STUNNER: ENOUGH FENTANYL SEIZED TO KILL EVERY AMERICAN

 

John Roberts’ Failure To Bring Dobbs Leaker To Justice Sets A Dangerous Precedent

White House climate official sanctioned by key science body

The NAS, the most prestigious science body in the U.S., said the decision, effective Aug. 8, stems from section 3 of its code of conduct. It states that members “shall avoid those detrimental research practices that are clear violations of the fundamental tenets of research.”

• • A NAS spokesperson confirmed that the decision is related to last year’s retraction of a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
  • Before joining OSTP, Lubchenco edited a paper that was retracted from the journal PNAS in October 2021 because the data underlying the analysis was not the latest available, and because she has a personal relationship with one of the authors (her brother-in-law).
  • Lubchenco, while at the White House, has been spearheading work to develop scientific integrity policies across government agencies.

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1559628433243754497

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1559888429466484737

Fact Check: Joe Biden Falsely Claims ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ Does Not Subsidize Foreign-Made Electric Cars

Related:

Fact Check: Falsely Claims Working, Middle Class Will Not ‘Pay a Penny More’ as Result of IRS Audits

TRUMP, DYNASTY KILLER: NO BUSHES, CHENEYS, MCCAINS, OR CLINTONS IN OFFICE NEXT YEAR

FBI assets repeatedly confirm that even by August 2020, there was no plan to kidnap and kill Whitmer. So they turned up the heat and added another FBI agent to sucker the targets. Why? https://t.co/sQe67F6UA1

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 17, 2022

Germany: Finally Facing Energy Reality

Democrats are determined to follow this path to failure no matter how many countries go down before us. The virtue signal (and standard political graft) is more important than real world results. If you buy the green nonsense, I’ve got a #MeToo, #BelieveAllWomen NFT to sell you.

Report: 44 Percent of Pregnant Women in Pfizer Trial Lost Their Babies; FDA and CDC Recommended Jabs For Expectant Mothers Anyway

Related:

– Hikers found dead
– Drownings
– Small plane crashes
– Bicyclists collapsing dead
– Soccer players (Footballers) dropping dead
– All manner of athletes collapsing or dying suddenly
– People dead in their sleep
– People found dead at home
– Entertainers collapsing/dying on stage

— Dr. James E. Olsson (@DrJamesOlsson) August 17, 2022

Trans Totalitarianism: Time For Moral Panic

“…When I was reporting Live Not By Lies, I talked to a senior physician at a major US hospital in a conservative state. The man only talked to me if I agreed not to use his name. His family emigrated to the West from the USSR when he was a child. Now, he said, he is seeing things that didn’t even exist in the Soviet Union. He told me that at his hospital, the management instructed all the physicians to give to any patient, including children, any gender-transition assistance they asked for — even if it violated the physician’s best judgment about that particular patient. There was no other health care issue in which doctors were told by the hospital to suspend their medical judgment to give a patient what he or she wants. Why do you think that is, reader? When the lawsuits begin, I wonder if “just following orders” will protect doctors?

By the way, this particular physician told me that the HR department at his hospital monitored their social media accounts, looking for wrongthink. He said that if he didn’t have a social media account, that would cause HR to flag him as a potential problem. So he kept his account up, but only put happy-clappy “wellness” things on it. This man is a top doctor at one of the country’s biggest hospitals, and he has to live in that kind of fear. Why doesn’t he quit? Because he has a family, and tuition to pay, and all the usual reasons. The other day in Vienna, I talked to a young Muslim from Canada, a man who works in IT. We agreed that the Canadian government is insane, and that trans ideology is destroying children and families. “Why don’t people stand up?” he said. I asked him if he would stand up, knowing that it would probably cost him his job. He thought for a second, and said, no, he guesses that he wouldn’t.

I understood. This is the condition most people are in. You maybe start to see why there were so few dissidents in the Communist world. It really and truly cost you a lot. Everybody likes to think that they would stand up, but when it comes right down to it, almost everybody conforms…”

Stacey Abrams Says She Opposes Defunding the Police. She Led a Group That Wants To ‘Defund the Police.’

A Letter to Politifact

“…I am the author or co-author of several publications on constitutional qualifications for elected federal positions, on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and on impeachment procedures and standards.[1] Likewise, I have also been a source for prior Politifact reports.[2]

You stated in your August 9, 2022 report that:

Congress could act to bar Trump from running again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says that public officials cannot serve in any future federal, state, or military office if they engaged in “insurrection or rebellion.” The Senate hasn’t pursued that route. It could have banned Trump from running again during impeachment proceedings and did not. It’s unknown how the committee investigating Trump’s actions around the Jan. 6 attack may address the prospect of Trump’s candidacy.

Not one of your statements above is a fact. Each is a highly contestable legal claim, argument, or intuition.

First, you suggest Congress, acting under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, can pass a statute or resolution barring Trump (and, by implication, others) for purported insurrection. That has never been done. No federal court of record has ever said it could be done. And one federal court has suggested that it cannot be done. See Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7 (Circuit Court of the District of Virginia 1869) (Chase, Chief Justice of the United States). Your suggesting that Congress can enforce Section 3, by what amounts to a bill of attainder, is not a “fact;” rather, it is a contestable legal intuition.

Second, you state that a Section 3 disqualification by Congress would bar the defendant from holding “any future federal, state, or military office.” (emphasis added) However, that is not what Section 3 says. Section 3’s disqualification bar extends to listed positions: “Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or … any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.” This list does not cover: [1] membership in a state legislature; and, [2] arguably, the presidency and vice presidency. No court of record has determined the scope of Section 3 disqualification or the scope of its “office … under the United States”-language. Your use of “any” is not a “fact;” rather, it is a contestable legal intuition.

Third, you wrote: “[The Senate] could have banned Trump from running again during impeachment proceedings and [it] did not.” Senate disqualification in impeachment proceedings is controlled by the Impeachment Disqualification Clause—Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. That provision bars the defendant from holding “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Here too, the scope of the Impeachment Disqualification Clause’s “office … under the United States”-language has never been determined by the United States Supreme Court or any court of record. (And, that is not surprising as only three defendants—Judge Humphreys (1862), Judge Archbald (1913), and Judge Porteous (2010)—have ever been disqualified in Senate impeachment proceedings.) Your asserting that this “office … under the United States”-language would bar a disqualified defendant from running for or holding the presidency—or any other elected federal position—is not a “fact;” it is a contestable legal intuition. Indeed, the Impeachment Disqualification Clause’s language of “office … under the United States” is also the language in 18 U.S.C. Section 2071. Today, the majority view (in my opinion) is that the “office … under the United States”-language in Section 2071 does not extend to the presidency (or to any other elected federal positions)—if the majority view is correct, as determined by the courts, that is some reason to think that the nearly identical language in the Constitution in Article I (the Impeachment Disqualification Clause) and Amendment XIV (the Insurrection Disqualification Clause) does not extend to the presidency (or to any other elected federal positions).

Fourth, and finally, you wrote: “It’s unknown how the [House] committee investigating Trump’s actions around the Jan. 6 attack may address the prospect of Trump’s candidacy.” Perhaps, it is not “unknown.” Have you considered the alternative?: The House committee has taken no concrete action because it has no power to do anything consequential—that is, anything which will have actual legal consequences along the lines it would seek to achieve.

Given that even legal holdings established by the Supreme Court can be overturned by the Court in subsequent cases (e.g., Dobbs overturning Roe), perhaps, it is time for your organization to reconsider the idea that legal “facts” exist at all. There might be a few unambiguous and undisputed legal facts (e.g., each state has exactly two authorized senators). But your repeatedly affirming that the scope of disqualification under Article I or Amendment XIV is clear, unambiguous, and undisputed cannot fall under that narrow rubric. Few things do…”

THE AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT

“…Each summer, for the past two years, Lowe’s has been conducting an annual small business promotion called “Making It … with Lowe’s.”  Small businesses are invited to submit their new products to an in-house “shark-tank” panel.  The winner is rewarded with nationwide publicity, inclusion among Lowe’s vendors, and sales through Lowe’s 1,728 locations as well as over its website.  The catch:  In order to participate, the business owner had to be a racial minority, female, LGBT, disabled, etc.  After receiving formal notice from the ACR Project that this arrangement in a violation of Section 1981 (as to race) and an assortment of other laws, Lowe’s initially sounded like it was going to be uncooperative.  But when the project was renewed for the summer 2022 under a new name, it was open to small businesses generally…”

More woke corporations are to be targeted for compliance with American laws, including Starbucks, McDonald’s, JPMorgan Chase, and Dropbox.

A new enemies list? Conservatives, Trump allies targeted by the DOJ

In concession, Cheney compares self to Lincoln, doesn’t endorse GOP primary victor Hageman

Related:

Liz Cheney’s Concession Speech Was a Mentally Ill Cry for Help

Trump obsession derails a second Cheney career, but huge war chest hints of 2024 comeback

Cheney to lead organization against possible Trump reelection effort, report