Daily Wire @realDailyWire
·
EXCLUSIVE: Internal messages obtained by The Daily Wire show a FEMA official ordered relief workers in Florida not to help houses with Trump signs
4:28 PM · Nov 8, 2024. //

FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell announced the firing of a FEMA manager who ordered her staff not to assist residents displaying flags or yard signs supporting President-elect Donald Trump's campaign. Using a Saturday afternoon message on the social media platform "X," formerly known as Twitter, Criswell acknowledged the veracity of the report that first appeared in the Daily Wire (see OUTRAGE: FEMA Workers Working Hurricane Milton Aftermath Ordered to Bypass Houses With Trump Signs). This follows a report that the responsible official was "removed" from their position on Friday. //

Firing is a necessary but not sufficient step.

First, this announcement does not appear on FEMA's website in any form other than a tweet. It seems to me that this should rate some sort of an official statement.

Second, Washington's message does not give the impression that she came up with it independently. In my opinion, it looks very much like a safety briefing she took down at a meeting.

Third, firing her and referring the case to the Office of Special Counsel looks more like an exercise in butt-covering and scapegoating than concern about her actions.

Fourth, while her actions may be viewed as just the petty tyranny we've come to expect from a highly politicized federal bureaucracy, depriving citizens of federal assistance because they supported a major party candidate is a violation of multiple federal laws. FEMA seems to be attempting to appear to take action until the heat dies down. Fortunately, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis isn't going along to get along. //

At a minimum, all staff working under her supervisory chain need to be questioned about the instructions they received. It is entirely possible that Washington was the only team leader dim enough to write down and disseminate something meant to be unsaid. In fact, it is unbelievable that this was not FEMA policy in that area. A thorough investigation that results in firing everyone involved with this policy is not enough. Asses need to go to jail. //

Dutchsinse @RealDutchsinse
·
In their own words this is illegal Mr. Desantis .. see here!!!! https://dhs.gov/civil-rights-emergencies-and-disasters

Political discrimination during disasters is also covered under the law confirmed. Screenshot from DHS site directly attached.
5:12 AM · Nov 9, 2024

As a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, the defendant is expected to be certified as President-elect on January 6, 2025, and inaugurated on January 20, 2025. The Government respectfully requests that the Court vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy, //

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The Government's 278 Unopposed Motion to Vacate Briefing Schedule is hereby GRANTED. All remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule are VACATED. By December 2, 2024, the Government shall file a status report indicating its proposed course for this case going forward. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/8/2024.

Merchan might throw out the conviction due to the Supreme Court ruling that a president has “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”. //

retiredcantbefired | November 7, 2024 at 6:10 pm
Why won’t Merchan uphold the conviction and then sentence Trump to as much prison time as he can pile on?

Hasn’t that always been the aim? //

TargaGTS in reply to retiredcantbefired. | November 7, 2024 at 6:23 pm
He could do that. But, because immunity claims are immediately appealable. He can sentence Trump to prison but that sentence would immediately be stayed by an appellate court pending appellate review. In fact, had SCOTUS issued their presidential immunity opinion prior to trial starting, that immunity claim as applied to the facts of this case would have had to have been settled prior to the trial starting. The thought process is, if someone is immune from prosecution, it’s not enough to keep them out of prison. It must be a prohibition on the process of the prosecution itself. //

PrincetonAl | November 7, 2024 at 6:14 pm
Merchan isn’t going to do anything for Trump’s benefit. He would do this for Democrats benefit.

The strategy would be rather than having this thrown out on appeal in NY, complain about the Supreme Court and throw it out pre-emptively. A NY state Court loss does the Democrats no good.

This would allow them to further attempt to undermine the Supreme Court and the immunity decision (which was a very reasonable one)

If he does it, that is why. //

Hodge | November 7, 2024 at 9:26 pm
The conviction was a political gambit to influence the election, and indeed almost every single one of my Democrat friends mentioned at least once in every conversation, so arguably it did have some impact.

However, it didn’t have enough impact; Trump won.

So, now the question is, what is the best path for the Democrats in winding this thing up? Trump will not run again and this makes the exercise rather pointless. Further, there seems to be some reason to believe that when this case reaches the Federal appeals level it will be exposed as legally insufficient, and keeping it in the limelight may more publicly expose questionable decisions and actions by the key players.

So, it may be better for Merchan to toss the whole thing, while blaming the Supremes for protecting Trump. The Democrats like to claim that the court in in the bag for Republicans, so that would play nicely to their base as an excuse while allowing Merchan to continue as a judge without any picky picky investigations into his conduct.

As of this article’s publication, preliminary results show the amendment with more than 75 percent of support from voters. The New York Times projected the proposal’s passage.

As The Federalist previously reported, the amendment stipulates that “only a citizen of the United States” who is 18 years old and meets existing voter eligibility requirements may vote in elections held in the Tar Heel State. The measure was sent to voters for approval after it was passed by the state’s Republican-controlled House (99-12) and Senate (40-4) earlier this year.

Other states to have similar initiatives on their respective 2024 ballots include Wisconsin, Iowa, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Idaho.

The judge clearly went overboard and illegally focused on Tina Peters’ constitutionally protected viewpoint about election theft.

The left’s latest attack stems from Gorsuch’s new book on the government going after regular Americans. //

Three years before he threatened him while standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the problem with Neil Gorsuch was that his decisions as a federal judge were awful for the average working American.

“When the chips are down, far too often he sides with the powerful few over everyday Americans just trying to get a fair shake,” the powerful Schumer said against Gorsuch’s nomination.

On the first day of those confirmation hearings, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said, “In case after case, you have dismissed or rejected efforts by workers and families to recognize their rights or defend their freedoms.”

Now, Gorsuch’s left-wing critics say his problem is actually the complete opposite. They say he cares too much about the little guy and not enough about the bureaucracy that goes after the little guy.

Yes, really.

The criticism stems from a book Gorsuch recently co-authored with Janie Nitze titled Over Ruled: The Human Toll Of Too Much Law. //

The campaign against Supreme Court justices who fail to bend to the will of the left will undoubtedly continue. This particular attack is about as substantive as the previous ones, which is to say not very.

While the Des Moines Field Office of USCIS reviewed the suspect names with the assistance of the state DOT supplying Alien Registration Numbers, headquarters in Washington, D.C., will not allow the Iowa office to share the information.

“This information would be critical to Iowa’s election officials in this process and ensure naturalized citizens can cast their ballots as normal,” Pate wrote.

The Biden-Harris Department of Justice has threatened to challenge Iowa’s process of vetting the voting rolls. Pate wrote that he asked the DOJ to allow their Immigration Services colleagues in D.C. to turn over the data that’s been completed in Des Moines. //

‘The most current, verified information is available. Yet, Washington, D.C. will not share it with us,’ said Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate. //

“If the federal government has information that will ensure only U.S. citizens vote AND ensure naturalized citizens can cast their ballot as normal, that information must be shared.”

Not only was Neely breathing when the police arrived, but they refused to give him mouth-to-mouth, instead sticking him with Narcan assuming a drug overdose was involved. //

bluestardad
3 hours ago
The whole trial should have never happened. Penny deserves a good citizen award and instead he’s the victim of a malicious prosecutor.

853 OKG bluestardad
an hour ago
I'm hoping Daniel Penny can turn around and sue Bragg and NYC for malicious prosecution. //

anon-bdx1
3 hours ago
Obviously this video was available to the prosecution and they proceeded anyway

Joe Biden's now-infamous "garbage" comment in which he referred to Trump supporters with the derogatory term continues to haunt both the White House and the Kamala Harris campaign. On Thursday evening, things developed into a full-blown scandal, possibly including criminality.

After Biden made the statement while speaking to CNN, the White House immediately edited his remarks to insert a magical apostrophe. The narrative then shifted to claiming that the president was actually referring to a specific Trump "supporter's" garbage, in this case, a comedian who made a joke about Puerto Rico. As expected, the press ran with the revisionist history. //

This is no longer just about politics, though. According to a new report, the White House altered the transcript despite objections from the stenographer, who did not feel an apostrophe should have been added. The problem? That was almost certainly a crime. //

The supervisor, in the email, called the press office’s handling of the matter “a breach of protocol and spoliation of transcript integrity between the Stenography and Press Offices.”

“If there is a difference in interpretation, the Press Office may choose to withhold the transcript but cannot edit it independently,” the supervisor wrote, adding, “Our Stenography Office transcript — released to our distro, which includes the National Archives — is now different than the version edited and released to the public by Press Office staff.” //

It is a violation of the Presidential Records Act for anyone to tamper with and spoil an official transcript. Any requested changes are supposed to go through the Stenography Office, and they have no duty to abide by such requests if they believe them to be incorrect. The White House press office changing the transcript over their objections appears to be illegal. That it was done for obviously political reasons to protect not only Joe Biden but the Harris campaign as well, only makes the situation that much worse. //

Will the Biden-led DOJ push this issue and bring charges? Of course, not. That's not even a question at this point. Should Donald Trump's DOJ, if he were to win the election, push the issue? Absolutely. Democrats have had no mercy on Republicans the last four years, including weaponizing the law in ways it was never meant to be used. The only way that stops is by re-establishing some kind of deterrence.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, a – wait for it – Joe Biden appointee, ordered that 1,600 of those 6,000 names removed in August be put back on the voter rolls, saying the names were illegally removed too close to the election. The usual suspects are behind all of this:

Advocacy groups that sued — the Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the League of Women Voters of Virginia and others – said that data shared by the state for the case shows more than 1,600 people had their voter registrations canceled under the program during the quiet period.

Glenn Youngkin hit back hard at the "stunning" and blatantly political move: //

123FJB
10 hours ago
Put them back on the voter rolls and then put out a statement that those individuals will be arrested upon confirmation of their casting a ballot. //

Bobby Cheeky
10 hours ago
Reinstatement is a complicated process, and could take a few weeks! It probably can't happen until November 6.

Just play this corrupt judge like a fool, Gov. Youngkin, because that's exactly what they're trying to do you and the voters of VA. //
anon-v5qh
10 hours ago edited
Remember when the supreme court ordered PA to segregate and control the disputed ballots prior to the election in 2020? They of course ignored the order, counted the ballots and then mixed them in with the others so they couldn't be audited or identified. Oops, just another happy accident. Can't fix it.

VA should follow their law and let the activist judge twist in the wind here. This kind of ruling where the laws must not be enforced so you have to allow criminal acts is typical of the liberal judges with agendas (border law anyone? catch and release was a court ruling not a written law).

As we've learned over the years watching tight presidential races, each state holds its own election and has its own set of rules as to how it is administered. This makes for some stark differences in, for instance, deadlines set by states for accepting absentee or mail-in ballots. Mississippi allows ballot receipt up to five days after Election Day.

Until now, that is. On Friday afternoon, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision holding that ballots must be both cast and received by Election Day and that Mississippi's law is preempted by federal law. //

The State’s problem is that it thinks a ballot can be “cast” before it is received. What if a State changes its law to allow voters to mark their ballots and place them in a drawer? Or what if a State allowed a voter to mark a ballot and then post a picture on social media? The hypotheticals are obviously absurd. But it should be equally obvious that a ballot is “cast” when the State takes custody of it. //

That is not to say all the ballots must be counted on Election Day. Even if the ballots have not been counted, the result is fixed when all of the ballots are received and the proverbial ballot box is closed. The selections are done and final. By contrast, while election officials are still receiving ballots, the election is ongoing: The result is not yet fixed, because live ballots are still being received. Although a single voter has made his final selection upon marking his ballot, the entire polity must do so for the overall election to conclude. So the election concludes when the final ballots are received and the electorate, not the individual selector, has chosen. //

In January 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic, only 14 States and the District of Columbia accepted ballots postmarked by Election Day—with the other 36 requiring receipt on or before that date. //

As Justice Kavanaugh recently emphasized: “To state the obvious, a State cannot conduct an election without deadlines . . . A deadline is not unconstitutional merely because of voters' own failures to take timely steps to ensure their franchise.” //

Federal law requires voters to take timely steps to vote by Election Day. And federal law does not permit the State of Mississippi to extend the period for voting by one day, five days, or 100 days. The State’s contrary law is preempted. //

Tech in RL
3 hours ago edited
If this is such a Constitutional question, why did the Fifth Circuit limit its ruling to just the states under its jurisdiction when we know a single judge can make a ruling that covers the entire country? I’m rather surprised the RNC didn’t push the Fifth Circuit court to apply its ruling nationally since that ruling isn’t all that useful when not applied uniformly across the nation.

If the Democrats were wise, they wouldn’t appeal this ruling since it only really applies to one deep red state. If this goes to the Supreme Court and the High Court affirms the Fifth Circuit ruling, then it would apply nationally.

Harris’ campaign is promising that if she is elected and the numbers in Congress work, Democrats will eliminate the Senate filibuster. //

The Dems are not promising to eliminate the filibuster to break a few ties, with the understanding that there will likely be future turnabout and their worst Republican policy nightmares will come true. This time they are playing for keeps.

If they can broadly eliminate the filibuster, buy four more senators, make millions of illegal aliens citizens with a 51-senator vote, rig our voting system processes, and rejigger the Supreme Court to create a roster of 13 mostly leftist justices, then they can entirely stop speaking to the Republican side of the aisle because they will have a permanent filibuster-proof Senate majority. And the Republicans will never have enough voters to reinstate legislative bumpers for both sides. It is not that Democrats have evaluated the likely conservative counter-offensive and determined that the risk is a good one. They perceive no risk. With all these sweeping changes, they can do whatever they want until the end of time with no practical oversight or influence of the people. The only two things holding them back are a Harris victory in November and a conscience they sorely lack. We will be a functional leftist autocracy. //

The question is who wants to live in a place in which only a single point of view is mandated from the top of government down by people who have proven themselves to be too ineffective to lead under the rules that have existed for generations? Who will support a Republican Party that sees all of this partisan rule breaking coming and does nothing to stop it? This presidential election is a referendum on both parties, neither of which seems able to look to the future to understand its gravity. //

Regardless of how many times Democrat candidates tell us that they are protecting democracy, they are not doing anything of the sort. Democracy is mob rule, one more vote than the other team. The filibuster is not contained in the Constitution but instead is the logical outgrowth of the long-developed Senate rule-making process. For a bill to be filibuster-proof, it required the support of 67 senators until a rule change reduced that number to 60 in 1975. Legislative processes are not designed so one party or the other, with 51 votes, can trade radical swings in our country’s laws and policies. They are designed for the opposite result, to force legislation down the middle and away from both ideological extremes.

Our Constitution and Senate and House rules are written to compel legislators, who work for the people, to stand eye-to-eye, communicate, and compromise for the greater good. The 60 votes serve as an effective buffer against radicalism. Harris and her party have utter disdain for that rule book.

Will Scharf @willscharf
·
Remember: November 18, 2022 was THE key day when all four criminal cases kicked off.

• Nathan Wade was at the White House for 8 hours.

• Jack Smith was appointed Special Counsel.

• Matthew Colangelo quits DOJ, and shows up a few weeks later at Bragg’s office in New York.

KanekoaTheGreat @KanekoaTheGreat

BREAKING: Prosecutor Nathan Wade admitted to multiple meetings with the Biden-Harris White House during Fani Willis's prosecution of Donald Trump in Georgia but repeatedly claimed, "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" the details of those meetings.
10:01 PM · Oct 21, 2024

The observant reader might also note that Trump announced his candidacy on...November 15, 2022.

I really don't see how you finesse this. Buttigieg is with the Harris campaign; one assumes "ready to win" is not some obscure gay sex act and refers to the 2024 election. Harris campaign items festoon the wall behind him. The people are so enthusiastic that it can only be a Harris campaign event headlined by Buttigieg.

All joking aside, there is no way this is not some level of violation of the Hatch Act. Either he's actively campaigning for Harris or giving the impression of actively campaigning for Harris. Both are illegal. The real question is if anyone in the federal government cares. My guess is they don't for all the obvious reasons. //

anon-2hhh
3 hours ago
That’s really cool that we have all these laws concerning government employees and electioneering. Too bad election laws don’t mean any more than immigration laws to Democrats. If only ‘no one is above the law’ were true.

When CNN pundits are asking questions, you know it smells. Though the outlet is famous for their hatred for Trump, even their senior legal analyst Elie Honig is wondering, just what the heck is going on here?

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig on Friday said he is unaware of “any precedent” for Judge Tanya Chutkan releasing redacted documents of special counsel Jack Smith’s evidence against former President Donald Trump, given the November election is approaching. //

🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸
@mrddmia
·
Follow
More blatant lawfare and election interference by Biden-Kamala’s Jack Smith and DC Obama Judge Tanya Chutkan.

They’re publicly dumping a one-sided political narrative tomorrow.

With the election less than 3 weeks away.

After waiting nearly 3 years to bring the (bogus) charges.
9:09 PM · Oct 17, 2024 //

Is it election interference? "It’s very much a Rorschach test,” Honig said. I sure as heck know what I'm reading from that test.

He argued that the matter is open to interpretation, which is damning enough considering that even the appearance of banana republic justice is problematic after all the abuses of the Justice Department since Biden-Harris came into power. //

The Justice Department flatly states in their manual:

Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.

On Thursday, Trump's team filed a motion to continue the stay until November 14, arguing, in part, that allowing the “asymmetric release of charged allegations and related documents during early voting creates a concerning appearance of election interference.” Chutkan denied that motion, however, and indicated that she would lift the stay of her prior order on Friday, which she then did, directing the Clerk of the Court to docket the Government's redacted appendices (laying out their evidence) on the public docket.

Of note, in making that ruling, Chutkan determined that publicly docketing the Government's evidence against Trump less than three weeks ahead of Election Day did not create such a concerning appearance. Rather, Chutkan reasoned that not doing so would run the risk of creating the appearance of election interference: //

So, in one breath, she says she's going to allow the Government to present its case publicly (when Trump's response isn't due to be filed until after the election) for fear that not doing so would appear to be election interference, and in the next, she's saying that the court will "continue to keep political considerations out of its decisionmaking."

The entire federal lawsuit will likely fail because it seems likely that the trademark and copyright claims will be dismissed because of either of two grounds, or both, and the federal court will decline to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

First, there is no trademark liability when there a sale of genuine goods bearing a true mark even if the sale is not authorized by the mark owner. Polymer Technology Corp. v. Mimran, 975 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1992). “[E]ven repackaging of goods is not trademark infringement if it does not deceive the public or damage the mark owner’s goodwill.” Id. at 62. Although this case is about services rather than goods, the same principle applies. Skiplagged is selling genuine American Airlines transportation, and therefore is entitled to use the American Airlines mark to describe the services being sold, notwithstanding the fact that American Airlines has not authorized Skiplagged from doing so.

Second, under the nominative fair use doctrine, a person may use a third party’s mark without liability to refer to the owner of the mark or to their goods or services. That is, if there is no other way to describe the goods or services, other than by using the mark, then such mark usage is not infringement. See New Kids on the Block v Gannett Satellite Info Network, 971 F. 2d 302 (9th Cir 1992).

The copyright claim is novel. The copyright office had denied registration initially, and the court will likely be reluctant to give much protection to a logo by laws intended to protect creative writing. It seems reasonable that the same grounds for non-liability under trademark law will apply as well to this copyright claim.

It was in the 2003 race for the job of San Francisco District attorney, which Harris won—by cheating. She had agreed, under penalty of perjury, to spending limits, as had her rivals, but then she simply ignored them. //

Sure, Kamala may have broken a little law here or there, but she’s a progressive Democrat in a one-party state—so what did she do? She simply hired a good attorney:

…thanks to hiring a good lawyer and making the excuse that, oh, the form changed, I didn't really understand the meaning of this, so please lift the cap. She got the San Francisco Ethics Commission—and by the way, many of those people on the ethics Commission owed their positions to Willie Brown.

She got them to look the other way on this gross violation. It's a crime, by the way.

She could have been prosecuted for a misdemeanor had she been properly held accountable for this significant campaign finance violation, and anybody else would have, but the Ethics Commission simply lifted the cap, which is not in the Statute, so instead of disqualifying her, which would have been the normal punishment, and prosecuting her, she simply got away with it.

So in her first race for elected office, she ignored the campaign finance limits, she used corrupt patronage from her former lover to raise the money necessary to do the glossy ads. I've got several examples here. She did more mailers than all of the other candidates. She had independent expenditures on her behalf, and she simply was able to outspend and blow through these limits. //

“It’s pretty incredible that the birth of this meteoric career comes out of multiple campaign violations,” she concluded. //

Cynical Optimist
10 hours ago
That interview with Tucker was arguably the most fascinating interview I've ever seen, but that probably is because I'm from the Bay Area and have been politically active for a long time, it brought back a lot of memories and flashbacks to San Francisco politics.

One of the things that Harmeet touched on briefly and that I've been interested in is the fact that Kamala Harris used to be a good public speaker, she was glib and knowledgeable, and could speak extemporaneously. But the fact that she now cannot speak publicly and appears to be genuinely dimwitted at times has been puzzling to me,

Harmeet's conclusion was that she has Imposter Syndrome, that she knows she doesn't belong and that she's in over her head. The problem with that argument is that she has been hand-selected for everything she's ever achieved and has been in over her head the entire time.

Louis Rukeyser's Ghost Cynical Optimist
10 hours ago
I've know serious people who were functioning drunks who degenerated into morons like this. Long term hard boozing screws a person up.

It seems intentionally cruel that, in a time when we can easily track mail packages, the federal prison system often fails to provide location information for its inmates. We live in a technologically advanced society where you can receive notifications about how many stops away your Amazon delivery is, yet your family member can disappear for over a month with no available information. This disparity demonstrates an ethical failure within the justice system.

If there is a silver lining to the January 6 prosecutions, it’s that we have learned a lot about the DOJ and the federal prison system. I’m not suggesting high-end luxury conditions for federal inmates—just basic information about their location at any given time. We must also ensure that seemingly endless transport, or "diesel therapy," isn’t used as a punitive measure, as psychologically torturing inmates is cruel and unusual. The impact of these policies extends beyond the inmates themselves, causing significant distress for their families, who deserve clarity.

Curiously, many supporters of criminal justice reform on the left seem hesitant to discuss these problems, even as we've gained insight into the system through the experiences of the Biden administration's numerous political prisoners.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) is facing accusations of unethical conduct after it was revealed that she allegedly had private communications with a key witness in the Jan. 6 investigation using an encrypted messaging app.

The lawmaker, a fierce critic of former President Donald Trump, played a pivotal role in the proceedings.

Cheney allegedly exchanged messages with former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson in June 2022 as the investigation was still in full swing, according to Just the News. It is believed she used Signal, the messaging app, as a back channel to discuss the case with Hutchinson.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), chairman of the House Administration oversight subcommittee, brought the allegations to light. //

“Our investigation has uncovered unethical back-channel communications between former Rep. Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson just before Hutchinson changed her sworn testimony,” Loudermilk said. “Not only is communicating with a witness without their attorney present unethical, it undermines the integrity of an investigation. //

“Clearly, Cheney did not want Stefan Passantino representing Hutchinson; as shortly after Cheney and Hutchinson began communicating, Cheney convinced Hutchinson to fire Passantino, and arranged for a new attorney to represent Hutchinson pro-bono. “ //

The revelation has raised questions about Hutchinson’s testimony – especially her wild claims about Trump.