Willis’s disregard for the Speech or Debate Clause represents the least offensive part of the Fulton County prosecutor’s witch hunt. By targeting political opponents with a sham investigation that promises a fishing expedition inquiring into legal and legitimate Republican strategies, the Democrat district attorney runs headlong into the First Amendment. However, because pre-Trump our country has never seen such a blatant abuse of power and weaponizing of the grand jury system, precedent provides scant support to stop Willis and other Democrats. //

As I detailed earlier this month, “Willis told a Georgia federal court that ‘a central focus’ of her investigation into the 2020 election ‘is former President Donald Trump’s January 2, 2021, telephone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger requesting that the Secretary “find 11,780 votes” in the former President’s favor.’” And “with that opening paragraph, the Fulton County Democrat revealed the hoax of an investigation she is running,” because “Trump did not request that Raffensperger ‘find 11,780 votes.’ Period. It never happened.”

Because Willis continues to push a grand jury investigation premised on a provable lie, the courts should force Willis to justify the grand jury proceedings in total. //

While the Speech or Debate Clause provides—or should provide—some protection against a prosecutor running rogue, the weaponizing of the grand jury by state-level Democrats presents no less of a breach of the Rubicon than the Trump Mar-a-Lago raid. But because our country has never seen this scenario before, it is unclear whether First Amendment jurisprudence will be up to the task of countering the continuing abuse justified by a desire to destroy political enemy No. 1.

Why bother hiding your cards when the media won’t challenge you?

Democrat lawyer Marc Elias knows what’s up. He shows us why the Democrats raided Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago.

Because this would never apply to anyone else, right? Looking at you, Hillary. //

Marc E. Elias @marceelias
·
The media is missing the really, really big reason why the raid today is a potential blockbuster in American politics.👇
8:09 PM · Aug 8, 2022

18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally: //

Marc E. Elias @marceelias
·
Replying to @marceelias
Yes, I recognize the legal challenge that application of this law to a president would garner (since qualifications are set in Constitution). But the idea that a candidate would have to litigate this is during a campaign is in my view a "blockbuster in American politics."
8:48 PM · Aug 8, 2022

Greenwald said that Trump expelled the “Bush-Cheney” ideology by denouncing them and he won, thereby changing the very nature of the Republican party. That’s why the Cheneys and the Bushes hate Trump, “petty dynastic vengeance,” Greenwald said. Cain notes how “principled” the left is when they align themselves with the neo-conservatives because the neo-conservatives are against Trump.

Things haven’t been the same since Trump showed you can unseat the establishment. That’s why he’s truly “evil” to these people on both sides of the aisle, it has nothing to do with Jan. 6. They hated him way before that, indeed, ever since he won and that’s why. He upset the plan and showed it could be upset. That’s why he has to be crushed so that no one will ever dare to do that again. //

DithoTx
5 hours ago
“In our nation’s 246 year history there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our Deep State Dynasty than Donald Trump.” //

To the NeoCons and the rest of the Establishment, Donald Trump was the ultimate traitor. //

Trump's personality, the "mean tweets," the nick-names for opponents and all that stuff is, in their minds, so unacceptable that they place their standards of behavior above the things that really matter. They would rather have a center-right or center-left President who behaves like they do, or like Reagan did, because appearances are far more important to them than principals. It's a grotesque standard of priorities,

The American people are not to blame for this mess. Joe Biden and those who supported him are. Never Trumpers don’t get to run from that now that things have collapsed.

Just today, in another big victory for Trump and Barr, a federal judge ruled that the plaintiffs (ACLU, BLM, etc) in various lawsuits against Trump, Barr, and other former administration officials over the incident could not provide sufficient evidence that there was a conspiracy to deny protesters their First Amendment rights. The judge also ruled that Trump and Barr “are entitled to qualified immunity as the plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a violation of law”:

So if I’m reading all of that correctly, it looks like the mainstream media approached the entire issue with deep skepticism from the start, not necessarily because they didn’t believe it was possible, but because they didn’t like the guy making the claims. And every bit of their reporting and fact-checking on the claim from that point forward was framed around that belief and was clouded by their hostile, mistrustful feelings towards Trump.

While a healthy dose of media skepticism towards claims made by politicians is always warranted, it’s not an excuse to slack off of doing exhaustive due diligence when it comes to investigative reporting and fact-checking, especially on a topic as important as this one. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened here. Also unfortunate is that this visceral anti-Trump mindset was pervasive in other reporting on the administration as well on issues that had nothing to do with the coronavirus.

To deter tricksters, a $5 non-refundable fee was added to the online sign-up but apparently, these super smart and totally clever Tik Tok tricksters aren’t reading the fine print according to the New York Post:

“But they kept coming,” Lantry said. “From Colorado and California and Chicago and Houston, all over the country.”

Multiple “Ruth Ginsbergs” — from Salisbury, Md., and Greensboro, N.C. — gladly paid for their ducats.

By the time the Oct. 3 rally began in a commercial parking lot on the South Shore, the Trump-haters had shelled out $15,785 to buy more than 3,000 vouchers they had no intention of using.

“They hate this president so much that they’re willing to donate to the Republican Party to troll him,” Lantry said

Talk about a task failing successfully.

The funny part is that the seat reservations weren’t really even noticed because it was an open-air rally which was attended by 2,500 locals.

This hackery is getting tired //

The bottom line here is that the President disclosing that the US has a new nuclear weapon at some stage of development is hardly top-secret, or even secret. Nothing in his statement tells anything specific about what the weapon is or does. The entire kerfuffle in utter nonsense

Maybe the "System" is getting fed up with political violence by Democrats, even in Democrat states. //

🤙🏻
@ParlayKingLG
Olivia Winslow & Camryn Amy are facing 7 charges. 3 of those charges are felonies. Of those which include assault, robbery, and hate crimes against a 7 year old child. They are facing a potential 15 year sentence. The timeout generation is a complete failure.

It's always been deeper than they let on. //

Take Trump’s recent triumph in garnering a deal between the UAE and Israel, which also lead to an avalanche of other normalization moves by Arab countries towards the Jewish state. The President has been nominated for a Nobel Prize for the success.

President Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for helping broker a peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, according to a report.

Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a member of the Norwegian Parliament and chairman of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, submitted the nomination, Fox News reported.

“For his merit, I think he has done more trying to create peace between nations than most other Peace Prize nominees,” Tybring-Gjedde told Fox News.

The deal that led to that nomination was by far the most significant move toward peace in the Middle East in decades. And that’s precisely why it drove the foreign policy establishment, dominated by the left and Never Trump types, so insane. For years we’ve been assured by their “expertise” that such a quasi-alliance between Israel and the Arabs was not only impossible, but not preferable because it would only inflame tensions with the Palestinians. They were wrong. Again.

Unfortunately for the country, they’ve been wrong many times before. They were wrong about China. They were wrong about Iraq. They were wrong about how to fight in Afghanistan. They were wrong about Libya. They were wrong about the Arab Spring. They were wrong about Iran. They were wrong about Russia. They were wrong about Syria. I could keep going for a few more hundred words just listing major foreign policy failures by those who are held up as our intellectual betters. //

Zaid Jilani
@ZaidJilani
Bill Clinton on what would happen when the U.S. granted China normal trade relations. "It will strengthen those within China who fight for higher labor standards, a cleaner environment, human rights, and the rule of law."

When Sen. Bob Dole accepted the Republican nomination for president in 1996, his speech hit on the themes of “honor, decency and straight talk.” He proudly mentioned the great Republican Abraham Lincoln and explicitly denounced racism.

“The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents many streams of opinion and many points of view. But if there’s anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you — tonight this hall belongs to the party of Lincoln. And the exits, which are clearly marked, are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise,” Dole said.

The speech was held up in 2016 as an example of how wonderful Republican candidates for president used to be before Donald Trump. So it’s interesting to also look back at how this speech was received by its critics. For example, then-Senior White House Adviser George Stephanopoulos called it “partisan, negative and divisive.”

Fast-forward 24 years to the present. Once again a prominent Republican gives a speech with themes of honor and decency and straight talk. Once again the prominent Republican explicitly and repeatedly denounces racism. The Republican praises Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Frederick Douglass, the Wright Brothers, the Tuskegee Airmen, Harriet Tubman, Clara Barton, Jesse Owens, George Patton, Louie Armstrong, Alan Shepard, Elvis Presley, Muhammad Ali, Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Irving Berlin, Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra, and Bob Hope.

And once again critics claim that the speech is “dark and divisive.” //

[Martha Raddatz ] opined that Trump had delivered “anything but a message of unity” and a “very grim message for America.” Raddatz further shared her anti-Trump campaign narrative: “This speech was not the only time in the past few weeks the president has seemed eager to turn the attention back to the issues of race in this country, how does he expected to get re-elected with a message like that?”

It may seem quaint to do so in this day and age of fact-free opinion, but let’s look at the actual words of the Trump speech that Raddatz claimed was grim and racist:

We believe in equal opportunity, equal justice, and equal treatment for citizens of every race, background, religion, and creed. Every child, of every color — born and unborn — is made in the holy image of God. (Applause.)

We want free and open debate, not speech codes and cancel culture.

We embrace tolerance, not prejudice. //

As if orders went out from a central director, nearly every major media outlet flat-out lied about Trump’s speech. Whether they were engaged in reflexive “political advisor” mode like the Stephanopoulos of old, whether they had pre-drafted their reports based on dubious theories about what would be in the speech, or whether they simply decided that the best way to counter an effective political message was to simply lie about it, lie about it they did.

This is something!

Bolton is a thin-skinned and snarky figure who succeeded in convincing a surprising number of smart people in Washington that he is somehow serious and statesmanlike.

Berman was free to refuse to sign a letter he disagreed with. But because that letter reflected a policy priority of DOJ, his refusal should have been accompanied by his letter of resignation.

“Independence” – even in the Sovereign District of New York – only takes you so far.