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.

The role of sheriff is one of the most understated positions in American governance, yet it is arguably one of the most important – especially from a liberty-centered perspective.

A sheriff who is fulfilling his or her constitutional duty stands up for the rights of citizens – especially in the face of state and federal overreach. They represent a sense of decentralization and the idea that local politics is the most important – which is why some progressives can’t stand them.

In a guest essay for the New York Times, author Maurice Chammah insinuated that sheriffs have far too much power. //

The notion that sheriffs hold too much power is indicative of a mindset that favors a top-down approach to governance rather than a bottom-up stance. They believe government at the federal and state levels should reign supreme even over local governments. In this light, the role of the sheriff could be problematic for this type of agenda. I wrote a piece on my Substack explaining how sheriffs who are doing their jobs can serve as bulwarks for liberty against government overreach. //

Dieter Schultz
4 hours ago edited
Sheriffs can refuse to enforce laws that violate constitutional rights – especially those laid out in the Bill of Rights.
It would seem to me that, because they took an oath to obey the Constitution, all law enforcement officers should be "refusing to enforce laws that violate constitutional rights"!

But, I guess that's just my silly take on things.

Goldman noted that Ranson relying on Copilot for "what was essentially a numerical computation was especially puzzling because of generative AI's known hallucinatory tendencies, which makes numerical computations untrustworthy." //

Because Ranson was so bad at explaining how Copilot works, Schopf took the extra time to actually try to use Copilot to generate the estimates that Ranson got—and he could not.

Each time, the court entered the same query into Copilot—"Can you calculate the value of $250,000 invested in the Vanguard Balanced Index Fund from December 31, 2004 through January 31, 2021?"—and each time Copilot generated a slightly different answer.

This "calls into question the reliability and accuracy of Copilot to generate evidence to be relied upon in a court proceeding," Schopf wrote. //

Until a bright-line rule exists telling courts when to accept AI-generated testimony, Schopf suggested that courts should require disclosures from lawyers to stop chatbot-spouted inadmissible testimony from disrupting the legal system. //

Goldman suggested that Ranson did not seemingly spare much effort by employing Copilot in a way that seemed to damage his credibility in court.

"It would not have been difficult for the expert to pull the necessary data directly from primary sources, so the process didn't even save much time—but that shortcut came at the cost of the expert's credibility," Goldman told Ars.

Democrats are trying everything they can to hold onto judicial power in case Trump wins in November. //

Texas’s firebrand attorney general, Ken Paxton, has been particularly successful in procuring injunctions in certain Texas-based federal courts against Biden’s myriad overreaches. Furious, leftists are now seeking to thwart Paxton by taking away a tool he has utilized to great effect: the single-judge division. //

Push to Randomly Assign Cases

Nevertheless, left-wing activists are now attempting to use the Judicial Conference, the supervisory body that essentially acts as the federal judiciary’s own Deep State, to end the use of single-judge divisions in all cases of injunctions against the federal or state government. Earlier this year, the Judicial Conference issued “advisory guidelines” to all the nation’s district courts, recommending that all cases be randomly assigned throughout the district in which they are filed — regardless of the division that actually receives the filing. //

Now, just weeks before a monumental election, leftists have once again ramped up their efforts to ram through a rule in the Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference that would make the previously “advisory” guidance outright mandatory, thus caving to the demands of, among others, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and the Biden Justice Department. The Judicial Conference purports to locate such authority in the Rules Enabling Act, the 1930s-era statute that authorizes the Judicial Conference to prescribe rules of civil and criminal procedure for the federal judiciary.

But Congress — not the judiciary — has the ultimate power to reject any rule promulgated by the Rules Enabling Act. Congress should not hesitate to exercise such power, should the Judicial Conference succeed in pushing through its single-judge division edict. //

But regardless of the election result, it is crucial to flag the left’s latest effort to decimate long-standing judicial norms simply because leftists are furious that they are not consistently getting their way in case outcomes. This attempt mirrors Justice Elena Kagan’s desperate and ludicrous call for lower federal courts to supervise the Supreme Court when it comes to recusal decisions. The proposal now before the Judicial Conference’s Rules Committee caves to the whining of leftist commentators upset over politically charged rulings. It is a nakedly political power grab.

Should the Rules Committee adopt the proposal, the Supreme Court needs to put its foot down. Because the justices have been issuing many decisions that leftists detest, the court in recent years has been subject to numerous high-profile political and physical attacks. //

Congress can also act — and has the leverage to do so. Right now, the Judicial Conference wants the U.S. House to pass two separate judge-related bills. One of those bills would authorize about 66 new federal judgeships; the other would extend some temporary judgeships. The House Judiciary Committee should refuse to act on either bill until the Judicial Conference agrees it will not alter the case-assignment process through its Deep State committees. Congress should demand that if the Judicial Conference wants changes to case-assignment procedure, it will seek new authorizing legislation so as to not create a conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 137. Congress, which alone writes federal law under our Constitution, must shut down the Judicial Conference’s highly dubious Rules Enabling Act legal theory of delegated power.

The appeals court ordered a new trial on damages because it said the $46.8 million award was too high, but affirmed the lower court's finding that Grande is liable for contributory copyright infringement. //

Back in 2020, we wrote about the voir dire questions that record labels intended to ask prospective jurors in their case against Grande. One of those questions was, "Have you ever read or visited Ars Technica or TorrentFreak?" //

The 5th Circuit remanded the case to the district court for a new trial on damages. Record labels can expect a lower payout because the appeals court said they can't obtain separate damages awards for multiple songs on the same album.

"The district court determined that each of Plaintiffs’ 1,403 sound recordings that was infringed entitled Plaintiffs to an individual statutory damages award," the 5th Circuit said. "Grande contends that the text of the Copyright Act requires a different result: Whenever more than one of those recordings appeared on the same album, Plaintiffs are entitled to only one statutory damages award for that album, regardless of how many individual recordings from the album were infringed. Grande has the better reading of the text of the statute."

The Copyright Act says that "all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work," the court said. In the Grande case, record labels sought damages for each song but conceded that "each album constitutes a compilation." //

Cox told the Supreme Court that ISPs "have no way of verifying whether a bot-generated notice is accurate. And no one can reliably identify the actual individual who used a particular Internet connection for an illegal download. The ISP could connect the IP address to a particular subscriber's account, but the subscriber in question might be a university or a conference center with thousands of individual users on its network, or a grandmother who unwittingly left her Internet connection open to the public. Thus, the subscriber is often not the infringer and may not even know about the infringement."

Cox asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the 4th Circuit "err[ed] in holding that a service provider can be held liable for 'materially contributing' to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it." //

Team Tardigrade Ars Centurion
4y
360
This should be fun. How long before someone accuses, oh I don't know, a hospital, state legislature, or The 5th Circuit of piracy to have them shut down? I'm assuming that systems like that become automated and that any accusation will result in being disconnected. //

Waco Ars Tribunus Militum
7y
1,674
Subscriptor

hillspuck said:
I'm struggling to find another solution than "lol copyright owners just have to suck it up and let people pirate all they want." That solution never flies with the people who own the politicians.
If they want to prove piracy, let them prove piracy. It still doesn't mean you get to cut off a utility necessary for modern life.

If they can't (or won't spend the money to do so) then piracy clearly isn't as big of a deal as they make it. //

mangoslice Smack-Fu Master, in training
9y
64
Subscriptor++
You are assuming there’s never even an accusation of piracy for an IP address that is tied to you. One of the issues here is that if a corporation says and claims you are committing piracy against them then ISPs would be compelled disconnect you.

No due process. //

Socks Mingus Ars Scholae Palatinae
5y
631
"The evidence at trial demonstrated that Grande had a simple measure available to it to prevent further damages to copyrighted works (i.e., terminating repeat infringing subscribers), but that Grande never took it," the 5th Circuit ruling said.

Does this mean we get to cut off access to the legal system any time a company and their affiliated law firms file a false DMCA claim? //

cyberfunk Ars Scholae Palatinae
12y
938
I think the decision headline here is really

"5th Circuit rules ISP should have to be bound by Jury Verdict​"

It's misleading to say that the 5th circuit here actually found in favor of Rightscorp per se.. they found that there was no credible reason to invalidate the jury verdict. In my eyes those are very different matters.

Yea, it's not the outcome I want either, but we do ourselves a disservice painting this as a bunch of "bad conservative judges doing the thing we don't like". I just don't see this decision as particularly partisan nor wildly unreasonable, legally speaking. It is, in fact, BETTER to have a jury rather than a bunch of judges deciding on such matters as it's a more direct representation of the popular power rather than the judiciary.

Yes, yes, the juries arn't always experts on matters of law, but the system is setup to work with a judge there advising them on such matters.. but the power rests with the common man here, not some set of judges.

I should say that this means we need to change the laws around copyright / DMCA notice abuse and procedure here rather than yell into the wind that some judges didn't do what we wanted (regardless of political orientation). Yelling at the judges for enforcing the laws on the books is silly and counterproductive.

Specifically, Judge John Bush said that judges should discern the original understanding of free speech in “linguistical meaning” and “evidence of how Americans ordered their lives” in the 1790s.

The Second Amendment case to which the authors referred was New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the Supreme Court ruled that, among other considerations, gun control laws must be consistent with the “historical” standard of restrictions on firearms.

The primary argument the authors made is that relying solely, or mostly, on historical interpretations of the law to define the scope of free speech is problematic. They contend that taking such an approach could lead to inconsistent, regressive, and ultimately tyrannical rulings that would roll back protections on speech.

“If rules from the 1790s were enforced today, citizens could be jailed for criticizing politicians, public figures could freely use defamation law to punish critics, and schoolchildren would have few if any free speech rights,” the authors stated.

The authors also noted court cases that expanded the right to free speech, specifically a 1943 case where a court “held that the government could not compel students to salute the flag because ‘no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion.’”

They also brought up a 1971 case that “held that the government could not ban vulgar or offensive speech.”

Yet, in the 17th and 19th centuries, the government had no problem with restricting speech in a way that seems foreign to us today:

Historically, the wrong kind of speech could land you in jail. Laws criminalizing blasphemy, government criticism, tepid sexual content, and other speech viewed to be bad or harmful were commonplace at the country’s founding.

Another historical example the authors offer is the prohibition of abolitionist speech in Southern states, showing how restrictions on speech were used to uphold oppressive institutions such as slavery. //

any court decision should be made through the lens of liberty, seeking to ensure the state does not infringe on any of our rights without an exceedingly good reason. The Framers sought to create a system of governance that would make it difficult for the state to impose laws or policies that make it more intrusive in our lives. The goal was to cultivate a society free from oppressive and unnecessary restrictions imposed with the threat of government violence.

The north star for any court should be liberty, regardless of whether it is in line with historical precedent. Otherwise, those seeking to violate our rights will find it far easier to do so.

This is unverified, un-cross-examined hearsay from grand jury testimony, which usually isn’t revealed publicly for that reason. He went to court. He asked for special permission to file a brief that’s four times as long as a normal brief and to have it disclosed less than 30 days before the election. This is professional misconduct in all likelihood by Jack Smith and it should be investigated. //

Cotton incisively argued that Trump didn't incite violence, as Smith's filing claims, but instead told the protesters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to “protest peacefully and patriotically," again calling Smith guilty of election interference.

This is a perfect example of actual election interference: Jack Smith violating Department of Justice regulations to try to get out as much unverified, so-called evidence as he has because he’s angry that he lost and the Democrats don’t think they can beat Donald Trump on issues like inflation and immigration. //

Finally, when Welker asked Cotton if Trump indeed lost the 2020 election, the senator deftly answered:

You had states that were changing their election practices or election laws, sometimes in violation of the Constitution. You had networks combining with big tech to suppress what we now know to be a truthful story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and the evidence that it exposed about Biden family corruption.

the Texas case will now return to the District Court for further proceedings, but for now, the Texas Human Life Protection Act remains in effect. //

Keith
2 hours ago
This frivolous appeal by Biden's admin is indicative of their contempt for legal rulings they don't like and the courts that issue them. They are tyrants just looking for the opportunity to rule us all.

SCOTUS was clear on making abortion a state, not federal issue. //

Largo Patriot
3 hours ago edited
States rights exist for a reason and do not prevail only when the federal government allows them to. That's the whole point of states rights. People in red states shouldn't have to live like the people in blue states and vice versa. Abortion advocates are hyperventilating that the federal government, at Trump's direction, will ban all abortions, but have no problem if the federal government, at a Democrat's direction, bans all restrictions on abortion, including restrictions that prevent born alive babies from being left to die. The best way to resolve this conflict is to allow state voters, not federal voters, to decide the regulation issue. We've been arguing about abortion for more than 50 years despite the fact it's been legal that entire time, but legal is never enough, safe and rare is a joke and "celebrate abortion" is the battle cry of pro-abortion advocates. Why don't they put as much time and effort into preventing unwanted pregnancies as they put into killing unwanted babies? It's cheaper, safer and no human life is lost.

Former President Donald Trump can expect to fight impeachment efforts again pending a second term this November.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 165-page report unsealed Wednesday is the Steele Dossier 2.0, an anonymously sourced manifesto compiled to warrant deep state investigations into former President Donald Trump with the ultimate aim of tossing him out of the White House. //

The report, filed and made public within 60 days of an election, serves no legitimate legal purpose, as the special counsel desperately attempts to thwart Trump’s return to the Oval Office.

“Smith was clearly eager to get this out before the public despite Justice Department policies that encourage prosecutors to avoid acts that would be viewed as trying to influence an election,” wrote George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley on X. //

“In some ways …” wrote former prosecutor and National Review Editor Andrew McCarthy, “Smith’s public submission is better than a trial.”

Trials are messy and unpredictable; prosecutors’ written descriptions of what they hope to prove are often compelling and damning. That is why, at a trial, the judge routinely instructs the jury that an indictment and proffers by a prosecutor are only allegations; they are not evidence, they are not subject to cross-examination, and they prove nothing. Here, by contrast, there will be no cautionary instructions. //

If Trump were to win, Smith is certain to continue the deep state lawfare campaign even after the election, likely challenging any effort for the president to pardon himself. In other words, Smith’s persistent prosecution laid out in the 165-page filing is the Democrats’ “insurance policy” against another Trump presidency.

Jack Smith has failed in his quest to try Donald Trump before the 2024 election. So instead, the special counsel has bent ordinary procedure to get in one last shot, just weeks before voters go to the polls.

Smith has now dropped a 165-page doorstop of a filing in federal court, on the issue of Trump’s immunity from prosecution. Judge Tanya Chutkan — who suddenly claims not to care about the impending election despite her earlier efforts to expedite the case to get it in before the very same election… duly complied with Smith’s wishes… //

New York Magazine
@NYMag
·
Follow
The special counsel had information he wanted to make public. But he bent important rules to do so, writes legal columnist Elie Honig.
nymag.com
Jack Smith’s October Surprise
9:12 AM · Oct 3, 2024 //

The larger, if less obvious, headline is that Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects. At this point, there’s simply no defending Smith’s conduct on any sort of principled or institutional basis. “But we need to know this stuff before we vote!” is a nice bumper sticker, but it’s neither a response to nor an excuse for Smith’s unprincipled, norm-breaking practice. (It also overlooks the fact that the Justice Department bears responsibility for taking over two and a half years to indict in the first place.)

Smith’s filing comes just in time for the Harris-Walz campaign to try and make Jan. 6 a top campaign issue. Vice President Kamala Harris made a post on X about Jan. 6 just hours before the filing was unsealed.

“On January 6, the former president incited an attack on our nation’s democracy because he didn’t like the outcome of the election,” Harris said in a post on X. “If you stand for country, democracy, and the rule of law — our campaign has a place for you.”

It also doesn’t hurt that Smith’s filing was conveniently unsealed hours after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz bombed in the vice presidential debate against Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance.

Smith had to walk a fine line in creating this filing after the Supreme Court shot down his earlier lawfare attempts. That’s to say, the high court could once again squash Smith’s lawfare efforts if the charges he brought against Trump impinged on the established presidential immunity guidelines.

But Smith doesn’t care whether the substance of his motion is just, accurate, or even legal, because it’s never been about the rule of law — it’s always been about interfering in the election.

anon-89ic God family country
4 hours ago edited
I don't think many Americans appreciate this danger. In banana republics, politicians, judges and lawyers are often murdered with impunity. Politicians, judges and lawyers are, for better or worse, the foundation of our Republic. Mass illegal immigration is bringing not the best of foreign cultures to our shores, but the worst of abuses of civil society. That's what Harris is promising to give more of--a world in which lawyers, judges and politicians, or the doctor who misdiagnoses your cancer, or the priest who opposes abortion, or the store keeper who didn't give you your change fast enough, is a bona fide target. For all of us lawyers who came under threat during the covid hoax for challenging government policy, this is just plain unbelievable. Lawyers having to carry guns? Lawyers having to give instructions to their spouses about what to do if they disappear on the way home from work? this is America? And that's why this story is not funny and needs to be seriously considered.

Gretz anon-89ic
2 hours ago
The erosion of the rule of law was the goal of the Marxists. Thank all of your Soros-backed cohort for making the law as ugly and meaningless as possible.

The advent of a Cheech and Chong society has created a new problem for police departments: how to sort out legal marijuana enterprises from illegal ones. It isn't always that easy to tell weed that has been thoroughly taxed from the libertarian, free market variety; see California police hand deliver $800K worth of cannabis to distributor after illegal raid (nypost.com). //

24. OFFICER FRANCO compared the power usage of the TARGET PREMISES to nearby businesses and found it significantly higher.

25. OFFICER FRANCO, therefore, concluded that the TARGET PREMISES was cultivating cannabis, disregarding the fact that it is a diagnostic facility utilizing an MRI machine, X ray machine, and other heavy medical equipment—unlike the surrounding businesses selling flowers, chocolates, and childrens’ merchandise, none of which would require significant power usage. //

Raiding the NoHo offices near closing time, the SWAT team found pretty much what they would have expected to find if they had ever checked with city licensing agencies: a single employee and an X-ray and MRI machine. They detained the employee and proceeded to rummage through offices that obviously did not contain either marijuana plants or processing equipment.

39. Considering the search yielded no live cannabis plants or any other contraband, and the detained employee had already been released, it was evident—or should have been—that any further action taken by the LAPD Officers would exceed the scope of the search warrant.

    40. However, some LAPD Officers continued to roam freely throughout the TARGET PREMISES, casually engaging in conversation with one another. The whole operation was nothing short of a disorganized circus, with no apparent rules, procedures, or even a hint of coordination. //

43. Said LAPD officer, dangling a rifle in his right hand, with an unsecured strap, approached the MRI Office, glanced at the large warning sign on the door, reopened the door with his left hand and proceeded inside.

44. Expectedly, the magnetic force of the MRI machine attracted the LAPD Officer's loose rifle, securing it to the machine.

Wait, it gets better. With one SWAT team member's firearm welded to the MRI machine, our heroes search for a way out. They can't ask for help because the detained employee is a potential drug kingpin, and they don't want to look stupid, but mostly because they don't want to look stupid.

45. The MRI machine was equipped with a sealed emergency pull button labeled, "Caution, Emergency Use Only." This button was intended to be activated solely in the event of a genuine emergency, such as a health risk to a patient inside the machine, a fire, or an evacuation situation.

46. Rather than seeking assistance from the on-site employee, or waiting for the manager’s arrival, one of the LAPD Officers made the unilateral decision to break the seal and activate the emergency shutdown button, deactivating the MRI machine.

What could go wrong?

47. This action caused the MRI's magnet to rapidly lose superconductivity, leading to the evaporation of approximately 2000 liters of helium gas and resulting in extensive damage to the MRI machine.

We still haven't achieved Humiliationmax.

48. The LAPD Officer then grabbed his rifle, this time wearing the strap over his shoulder as he should have when he entered the MRI room, and proceeded to walk toward the entrance, leaving the magazine full of bullets on the floor of the MRI office. //

Anyway, the owner of NoHo Diagnostics is suing the LAPD for a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which would be misleading the magistrate about the nature of NoHo Diagnostics's business. It is suing the now-retired police chief Michael Moore for "willful, wanton, malicious, and done with a reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs," and it is suing the city and all twenty officers involved in this fiasco for negligence. //

flatlander 2 minutes ago

Whatever happened to just making a phone call or simply visiting the building? How about checking with city hall to find out how the business is registered? Why does everything have to be so dramatic?

stickdude90 37 minutes ago

So at no point during the planning of this raid did anyone think to actually visit the business first?

Calling them Keystone Kops would be an insult to true Keystone Kops.

The Shot Heard ‘Round The World.

On a cool Massachusetts morning, April 19, 1775, a group of farmers, tradesmen, and other “Minutemen” led by Captain John Parker, gathered on Lexington Commons to…express umbrage at the British Crown’s illegal attempt to confiscate Colonial Weapons.

“Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here,” declared Parker.

No one knows who fired the first shot, but at the end of the battle, eight Americans lay dead and as many wounded. This came to be known as the “shot heard ‘round the World” and the de facto beginning of the American Revolution.

Fast forward to today—current Vice President and Democrat nominee for President, Kamala Harris again voices a desire to violate an enumerated constitutional right.

The Second Amendment, arguably written with Lexington in mind, is still the only one we need “permission” to exercise and is still under constant attack by the left. That’s generating backlash among popularly elected local Sheriffs, reports The Wall Street Journal. From the article.

The “Second Amendment sanctuary” movement has taken hold in more than 100 counties in several states, including New Mexico and Illinois, where local law-enforcement and county leaders are saying they won’t enforce new legislation that infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms.

This isn’t a “one-of,” issue—we’re talking about over 100 counties across several states. This indicates widespread popular support, support that is galvanizing locally elected Law Enforcement Officials to take notice—and take action. //

Predictably, there has been the mandatory hue and cry from the left, declaring those Sheriffs to be lawless rogues. Strangely enough, this from locales that support sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. Of course, their screeching is without basis. First of all, the local Sheriffs are on pretty solid Constitutional ground.

In an added — and some might say ironic — twist, per CNN, Routh's case was assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon, the same U.S. District Court judge overseeing the classified documents case filed by the DOJ against Trump. (Cannon's name is present on the indictment, which may be viewed below — the preliminary proceedings were handled by Magistrate Judge Ryon McCabe.) //

GBenton
3 hours ago
That's beautiful. The dirtbag got a Trump appointed judge in Florida. If Bongino is correct and there is much more to this story in regards to Iran and assassins and the Biden/Harris clownshow, Cannon is the judge for the job, IMO.

Her handling of the Documents case was masterful, to my non-lawyer eyes.

She's the judge for the Federal charges. If DeSantis's state level charges are brought, I'm assuming they'd be handled in a state level court and not Cannon but I'd be glad to be wrong about that.

NavyVet wildmlm
4 hours ago
I think every black man that has ever been harassed by police should take what the DoJ is doing to President Trump to heart and realize "running while Trump" is the same thing as "driving while black" when you have the likes of the unconstitutional Jack Smith and the extreme leftist Garland stinking up DoJ.

The “sanctuary” term has most often been applied to immigration. But there are several different types of sanctuary cities – one of which is related to protecting Second Amendment rights. Indeed, over 61 percent of counties in America have declared themselves sanctuaries for gun rights. This means sheriffs and other local law enforcement would refuse to enforce unconstitutional restrictions on firearms coming from state and local governments.

An example would be what happened in Illinois when its government passed an assault weapons ban. Over half of the state’s sheriffs announced they would refuse to enforce the measure. While these counties did not necessarily declare themselves to be sanctuaries, the nullification principle was in action. //

Trump’s vow to end sanctuary cities will have more ramifications than he likely intends. Sure, it would make it easier to track down illegal immigrants – perhaps dangerous ones. But what is to keep a Democratic president from using this as a precedent to crack down on Second Amendment sanctuaries? //

This is why all politics is local. The governments that are closest to us should have the most say over what rules we choose to live under – not politicians in Washington, D.C. The last thing we want is for the federal government to be empowered to go after cities whose elected leaders uphold the Second Amendment – or other natural rights guaranteed in the Constitution. //

Anna DM
8 hours ago
I respectfully disagree. Illegal aliens are, well, illegal and so cutting off the funding to localities that endorse and support illegal activities is perfectly sane and rational. Gun ownership in the US is protected by the 2A. If some localities decide to disobey the 2A (placing unconstitutional prohibitions on the right to keep and bear arms) and then subunits within that locality decide to disobey the disobeying entity, that's not a sanctuary situation. That's a (very constitutional) middle finger to the entity that is disobeying the constitution. In the end, the courts generally overrule such unlawful incursions against the 2A. The two examples are not the same thing, IMO.

I say defund the sanctuary cities as regards illegal aliens. //

Terrible System
8 hours ago
2nd Amendment sanctuary cities are set up to protect clear 2nd Amendment rights. Immigration sanctuary cities are set up t0 abet violations of federal immigration law, which is clearly within the purview of the federal government to enforce.

There is no legitimate comparison here.

ꪻꫝể ꪻꫝể @TheThe1776
·
Megyn Kelly DESTROYS the lawfare against President Trump🔥🔥🔥‼️

11:16 AM · Sep 21, 2024
https://x.com/TheThe1776/status/1837511249321685004

Jason Calacanis asked about some of the cases, erroneously saying Trump had been found "guilty" in civil cases.

Kelly brought him up short, correcting him on the facts and the terminology.

His partners on the show also came back on him a bit, asking whether he knows Kelly is a lawyer,and said, "You said three convictions, now you're walking it back."

Then he asked if she thought all five cases had issues. "100 percent," she said.

That's when Kelly went to town. First, she noted the change of the law in the Carroll case. Next, she hit the problems in the fraud case brought in New York by Attorney General Letitia James, including that the banks didn't consider themselves victims and James ran on a promise of getting Trump.

She also snarked about how "Soros" Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg didn't like to bring any cases except against Donald Trump. There were questions there as well. Then she spoke about the Georgia case, where she referred to the relationship between Fulton County DA Fani Willis and Nathan Wade. Then she pointed out how the Florida classified documents case was likely to fall as well. //

David Limbaugh @DavidLimbaugh
·
I almost didn't watch this because usually when someone says another got schooled or whatever it's not that big a deal, but this is just delicious. Big props to @megynkelly for not only educating this clown, but humiliating him simply with the facts and unapologetic fierceness.

Democrats want to prevent Republicans from ‘engaging in any activities related to recounts, certifications, or similar post-election activities,’ and they’re counting on a judicial branch ally to make it happen. //

The case threatens to effectively put back in place restrictions that hindered the RNC for nearly four decades. A judge appointed by President Jimmy Carter instated the restrictions when he settled a case between the RNC and the Democrats with a consent decree that limited Republicans’ abilities to partake in regular election practices like poll watching.

From 1981 to 2018, the judge, who only served for 15 years but took senior status for 21, continued to renew the consent decree, and modify it in favor of Democrats, as The Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway pointed out in her book Rigged:

For decades, the Democratic Party built up expansive coordination efforts that the Republicans were prohibited from developing. Republican candidates and state parties could do things on their own, but not with help from the national party. …

The consent decree also meant the RNC was kept out of almost any litigation related to Election Day. In fact, a main part of the RNC’s legal efforts came to be training RNC staff to stay away from Election Day operations on Election Day, including recounts, and fending off litigation that arose from the consent decree. It utterly paralyzed the political operation of the RNC, as the slightest misstep would result in getting sued by Democrats. //

With the election coming up, the case has recently seen movement after being “randomly reassigned” to Chutkan in 2023. According to court documents, the case had two different judges before landing before Chutkan.

Although no major decisions have been made on the case yet, at a November hearing, Chutkan highlighted how important it was to keep the case moving in time for the 2024 election. //

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would restrict the Republican Party from being involved in elections more than the 1981 consent decree because the new lawsuit, in addition to asking that poll watcher restrictions be reinstated, seeks to limit GOP interactions with election officials.

Speaking with CNN, Rajiv Parikh, a Democrat attorney involved in keeping the 1981 consent decree alive, said Democrats believe a court intervention here will be particularly helpful for them in swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania, where lawsuits and challenges are almost certain to arise.