“JD Vance is weird” pic.twitter.com/IdZQlX0OLj
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 29, 2024
Category: Politics
New Hampshire: Critical Pro-Gun Privacy Bill Signed Into Law
On Friday, July 12th, Governor Chris Sununu (R-New Hampshire) signed HB 1186, “an act relative to firearm purchaser’s privacy,” into law. Thanks to the tireless work of leading New Hampshire gun rights advocate Rep. Jason Janvrin (R-Rockingham District 40) and the strong support of NRA members, New Hampshire becomes the seventeenth state to protect the privacy of law-abiding gun buyers by prohibiting financial institutions from collecting and misusing their personal information.
The NRA and its members thank Governor Chris Sununu, Rep. Jason Janvrin, and pro-gun New Hampshire lawmakers for supporting Granite Staters’ Second Amendment rights.
In the Fall of 2022, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) approved a Merchant Category Code (MCC) for firearm retailers. MCCs are used by payment processors (like Visa and Mastercard) and other financial services companies to categorize transactions. MCCs enable payment processors and banks to identify, monitor, and collect data on certain types of transactions. Before the ISO decision, firearm retailers fell under the MCC for sporting goods stores or miscellaneous retail.
Collecting firearm retailer financial transaction data amounts to surveillance and registration of law-abiding gun owners. Those promoting this scheme are in favor of firearm and gun owner registrations. Therefore, it should be assumed that the goal of this program is to share all collected firearm retailer MCC data with government authorities and potentially private third parties that may include gun control organizations and anti-gun researchers.
HB 1186 prohibits the assigning of a specific merchant category code to the sale of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories and provides a civil penalty for violations.
This critical legislation protects gun-owners privacy and ensures that bad actors cannot use credit and debit card transactions to create a gun-registry or block cardholders from making gun-related purchases.
Republicans at RNC Don’t Budge In Face of Latest Anti-Gun Onslaught
We’ve spilled a lot of digital ink on all the people pushing for gun control in the wake of the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. We’ve seen it from celebrities and athletes, to say nothing of politicians, even Biden who only calls for assault weapon bans on days that end in the letter “y.”
A lot of people are shocked that Republicans aren’t tripping over themselves to back gun control.
And let’s be real, if that was going to happen, it would happen at the Republican National Convention. Kicking off just a couple of days after the attempt on Trump’s life, you’d imagine emotions would be high and if they were ever going to do it, it would be here and now.
Only, as the Washington Times notes, it ain’t happening.
Republicans at their party convention said their commitment to gun rights and expanding concealed carry wasn’t diminished by the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump.
The party, according to delegates and lawmakers at the Republican National Convention, remained steadfastly opposed to sweeping gun control laws such as a ban on so-called assault weapons such as the AR-15-style rifle used by Mr. Trump’s would-be assassin.
Addressing a gathering of Second Amendment activists at the convention, Rep. Wesley Hunt of Texas said the attack Saturday on Mr. Trump only proves that firearms in the hands of law-abiding individuals are necessary.
“There are 400 million guns currently in circulation. Guns aren’t going anywhere,” Mr. Hunt said. “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and that guy is now dead because a good guy with a gun shot him.”
He added, “Imagine how many moral lives were spared because that sniper acted and took him out immediately.”
I just want to jump in here and point something out for all those anti-gun voices that laugh at the “good guy with a gun” thing: Law enforcement are good guys, too.
Many times, the good guy with a gun is a cop of some stripe, but the issue with counting on that is that cops aren’t always present and able to protect you. Trump had an entire detail charged with protecting him and we see how that went.
Moving on…
Rep. Kat Cammack of Florida assured gun-rights activists at the gathering, which was sponsored by U.S. Concealed Carry, that the platform’s drive-by treatment of the Second Amendment did not mean Republicans were less concerned about the issue.
“Everyone has always and will forever associate the conservative movement as right in line with the principle of 2A — ’shall not be infringed,’” she said. “Just because we don’t explicitly talk about it in a political platform for a single cycle doesn’t mean that we are not absolutely adherent to the belief that Americans have the right to defend themselves.”
Ms. Cammack said Republicans in Congress are working on passing national reciprocity legislation that would enable legal gun owners to carry concealed firearms across state lines, similar to how a driver’s license works.
That’s great.
Of course, it should have passed nearly eight years ago when Republicans controlled every branch of government, but better late than never, I suppose.
Regardless, it seems Republicans at the RNC aren’t remotely interested in buckling to the anti-gun agenda, especially in the wake of the attempt on Trump’s life. No one is taking it lightly or think it’s not a big deal, either. We just all seem to understand that nothing we said before Saturday’s attack has fundamentally changed. Gun control wouldn’t have prevented that attack and claiming otherwise is ridiculous.
That hasn’t stopped the usual suspects, mind you, but they’re so fanatical about pushing an anti-gun agenda, rationality isn’t really in their wheelhouse.
I’m just heartened to see gun rights remain respected at the RNC under the current circumstances.
Trump Dodges Another Bullet: Jack Smith
Everything really is going Donald Trump’s way in the six weeks since his conviction on May 30. Trump pulled in a vast fundraising haul after the conviction, jumping ahead for the first time in the campaign cash race while his conviction barely dented his standing in the polls. The intermediate appeals court in Georgia issued a stay order halting Fani Willis’s prosecution of Trump.
\The Supreme Court took two big bites out of Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump in D.C., with an immunity ruling and a decision on the obstruction-of-a-proceeding statute that will both require further, time-consuming litigation to see how they have narrowed the case. Acting Justice Juan Merchan delayed Trump’s state-court sentencing in New York from mid July to mid September in order to consider whether Trump’s conviction violated his immunity from having evidence of official acts introduced at his trial. His opponent melted down so badly in their first debate that Joe Biden is still fending off calls to drop out of the race, and has reportedly seen his fundraising dry to a trickle with big donors.
Then, Trump survived an assassination attempt and emerged looking vigorous and defiant. He will probably raise another mountain of cash after the shooting in Butler, Pa., which left a flustered Biden scrambling to pause his attack ads and reconsider the vitriol of his attacks on Trump. MSNBC even sidelined Morning Joe for the day out of fear of going overboard against Trump. And now, rolling into today’s curtain-opening of the Republican convention and announcement of Trump’s running mate, Judge Aileen Cannon has thrown out what once seemed the strongest of the cases against the former president: the retention of boxes of classified and sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left office.
Donald Trump Just Won
The shooter wasn’t just evil, but stupid
Regular readers of this newsletter, and people who hate my guts, don’t need to be told my opinion of Donald Trump. And speaking as someone who has managed to stay off the Trump Train for the past eight years:
This kicks ass.
The guy almost gets his brains blown out on live TV, and he stands up with blood on his face and pumps his fist in defiance. I think he said, “Fight!” Or maybe some other F-word. Whatever it was, it was awesome.
It may be the most American thing I’ve ever seen with my own eyes.
Whatever you may think of him as a person, or a past and probably future president, Trump showed us who he is in a moment of crisis.
And not a “crisis” like global warming or a Supreme Court ruling or the price of almond milk at Starbucks, but the crisis of actually getting hit in the head by a would-be assassin’s bullet.
Remarkable. My non-MAGA hat is off to him.
I’m glad the assassin missed his target, I’m angry that he killed a bystander, and I look forward to finding out how the hell the Secret Service allowed it to happen.
The shooter wasn’t just evil, but stupid. He just handed the election to the guy he wanted to kill.
How does Trump lose after this?
WASHINGTON – Federal regulations prohibit any licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector to sell or deliver any firearm to an individual who does not reside in the state in which the licensee’s place of business is located.
U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) led his colleagues in introducing the bicameral Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act (FICRA) to modernize and streamline the legal framework governing interstate firearms transactions. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA-01) introduced a companion measure in May.
“The Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens should not dissipate at state lines,” said Cramer. “For decades, outdated regulations have placed unnecessary burdens on our nation’s federal firearm purchasing laws. The Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act fortifies Second Amendment liberties by ensuring citizens can purchase and bear arms nationwide. It also enhances lawful commerce and supports our military members and their families, all while respecting states’ laws and regulations.”
“Our federal firearm purchasing process is unnecessarily complicated and is unfair for law-abiding citizens, small businesses, and our service members willing to put their lives on the line for our country. The need to modernize and simplify our federal firearm purchasing laws is long overdue and I’m pleased this bill will finally right this wrong,” said House Majority Leader Scalise.
Additional cosponsors include U.S. Senators John Barrasso (R-WY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ted Budd (R-NC), Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Steve Daines (R-MT), John Hoeven (R-ND), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-KS), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Jim Risch (R-ID), Rick Scott (R-FL), Tim Scott (R-SC), and John Thune (R-SD). The legislation has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).
“This legislation would modernize the way firearms are sold under federal law and remove arbitrary barriers for law-abiding gun buyers and sellers,” said Randy Kozuch, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. “On behalf of the NRA’s millions of freedom-loving members, we applaud Senator Cramer for championing this legislation to benefit gun owners nationwide.
“This is common-sense legislation that would allow law-abiding Americans to purchase firearms of their choosing while ensuring state and federal laws are enforced,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Americans are allowed to purchase long guns across state lines. This bill would extend that right to handguns. Your Second Amendment right to acquire and keep a handgun for self-protection does not end at your state’s border. This bill would remove an arbitrary and unconstitutional infringement on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”
2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises
In its first official platform since 2016, the Grand Old Party (GOP) slashed all mention of its gun policy positions.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) Platform Committee voted 84-to-18 on Monday to adopt the new 2024 platform language after skipping the process entirely in 2020. The finalized document leans into former President Donald Trump’s “America First” outlook and parrots many of his stances on issues ranging from immigration to trade. However, it also minimized the party’s emphasis on gun policy compared to its previous platform.
The entire platform discusses gun rights just once, in a preamble statement about the party’s dedication to defending “our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms.” The final product omits any discussion of tangible gun policy ideas.
The Republican Party platform’s downplaying of Second Amendment issues comes as the gun-rights movement finds itself in a precarious position politically. As guns have become increasingly polarized along party lines, gun-rights supporters have found themselves reliant on Republicans for political support. President Joe Biden has made gun control a fixture of his tenure in office and is already campaigning on even more sweeping proposals, including a ban on sales of the popular AR-15, in a potential second term. At the same time, while the GOP’s current standard-bearer has continued to seek the support of the National Rifle Association and make promises in speeches to the group, he has been fickle on gun policy at times. His felony convictions also mean he can no longer legally own or possess firearms.
Aren’t Gun Rights a Valid Presidential Debate Topic?
While Thursday night’s presidential debate was agonizing for many Americans to watch, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump did address some important issues ranging from our porous southern border to abortion to the downward spiraling economy.
What was glaringly absent, however, was any discussion of gun control and the Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms.
Call me cynical, but I believe that was by design. CNN, which hosted the debate, is a media standard bearer for all things gun control. In fact, the network hasn’t seen a restrictive gun proposal that it hasn’t embraced. And both Biden and Trump have spoken out often on the matter, just like they have on other issues, leaving little doubt where they stand on the right to bear arms.
So why weren’t there any questions asked on this issue that is so important to many American citizens? I believe it was because CNN and others in the gun-ban community know they are on the wrong side of the issue. And with Biden’s diminished mental capacity, the network and whoever helped it choose questions for the debate simply were afraid of what ignorant things the president might say about firearms.
Perhaps they thought he might spout off one of the standard soundbites he has used multiple times in the past. Phrases like, “Deer don’t wear Kevlar vests,” (duh!) and, “Nobody could own a cannon during the Civil War period,” (an outright lie) don’t engender a lot of trust in a leader. And such answers would likely have drawn a quick—and probably humorous—response from Trump.
Perhaps CNN was worried he would say something about “military-grade assault weapons” when talking about common semi-automatic rifles, or even that the firearm industry is the “only industry in America that has immunity”—both well-debunked falsehoods. Or maybe they thought he’d revert to the old chestnuts that you don’t need: “20, 30, 40, 50 clips in a weapon”, “magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them” or a “magazine with 100 clips in it.”
Fact is, Biden is quite possibly the most anti-gun president in history, as well as arguably the worst. Of course, we’ve chronicled his anti-gun schemes many, many times here at TTAG.
He wants to ban common guns and magazines, let gun companies be sued into oblivion for criminal use of their legally made and marketed products and make a background check mandatory even for private gun sales between family and friends. His ATF has made things so difficult for gun dealers that many have left the business to avoid persecution, and he even created a so-called White House Office for Gun Violence Prevention to help enable anti-gun state legislators to push his gun-ban schemes at the state level.
While I can’t say Trump was the most pro-gun president in history, except for the ill-conceived bump stock ban, he was a pretty good friend to gun owners. And his federal judicial nominations at the circuit court level and to the U.S. Supreme Court have enabled many Second Amendment victories that we wouldn’t have won with a Democrat in the White House instead of Trump.
His recent speech at the NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Dallas gives us some food for thought.
“Let there be no doubt, the survival of our Second Amendment is very much on the ballot,” Trump told the crowd gathered there. “We need the [Second Amendment] for safety. Because you know the bad guys are not giving up their guns…
“The NRA has stood with me from the very beginning. And with your vote I will stand strong for your rights and liberties.”
In the end, questions about gun control, like questions about nearly anything else, would have been losing questions for the sitting president. And while the debate was a pretty fair one, CNN chose to avoid asking Biden about his gun policies because it likely would have made him look even worse.
That omission is a true tragedy in a day and time when advocates of freedom constantly battle at all levels of government to retain our right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. Many people I know are one-issue voters. And that issue—a very important one to many people—wasn’t even discussed Thursday night.
Take a minute to get through the accent. I wouldn’t say ‘education’ per se is the problem. An indoctrination of a partisan agenda feeding the normal fallen human condition is.
What if democracy is merely the politic or superstructure of a particular cultural stage? Simple mass literacy in that case, continuing advances in teaching and learning in secondary and post-secondary levels will necessarily upset democracy in the places where it first appeared. Secondary education and especially higher education will introduce the notion of inequality into the mental and ideological organization of developed societies. After a brief period of hesitation and scruples the more highly educated end up believing they are truly superior.
In developed countries, a new class is emerging that comprises roughly 20% of the population in terms of sheer numbers, but controls about half of each nation’s wealth. This new class has more and more trouble putting up with the constraints of universal suffrage. It is a surprising return to the world of Aristotle, in which oligarchy may replace democracy at the very moment when democracy is beginning to take hold in Eurasia, it is weakening in those places where it was born.
These are indeed curious democracies, in which the political system pits elitism against populism and vice-versa. And although universal suffrage persists in theory, the elites of right and left close ranks to block any reorientation of economic policies that would lead to greater equality.
The common understanding among the elite, reflection of a common superior language among them prevents any correcting of the political system facade when universal suffrage would suggest the possibility of crisis.
Emmanuel Todd, After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order, (2001)
ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS DISPARAGE SCOTUS AS SECOND AMENDMENT CASES, ELECTION LOOMS
There’s a troubling trend by certain politicians to salt the ground at the U.S. Supreme Court before more significant firearm-related cases can be argued and decided. Politicians are disparaging the justices in an attempt to politicize the Court and delegitimize decisions even before arguments are heard. It’s unfolding in the cruelest ways, and it threatens the separation of powers between the three co-equal branches of government – the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches.
It is also a reminder that November’s presidential election carries with it added significance for the future of the Judiciary.
Just last week, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected a request by U.S. Senate Democrats to meet to talk about Supreme Court ethics and a ginned-up controversy over Justice Samuel Alito flying flags outside his homes in Alexandria, Va., and Long Island Beach, N.J. The first incident stemmed from a 2021 dispute with a neighbor who personally targeted Justice Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann, seemingly as a form of protesting the violence of Jan. 6. Mrs. Alito made the sole decision to fly an inverted flag at their Virginia residence in response to a neighbor’s pointed attacks. More manufactured controversy stemmed from Mrs. Alito flying an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at their New Jersey residence in 2023, despite San Francisco’s City Hall flying a similar flag, only to quietly take it down last month after the media uproar.
Justice Alito responded to Senate Democrats’ demands that he recuse from cases involving Jan. 6 based on these contrived controversies. He explained, in part, that a “reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases” would not conclude that he needed to recuse. But the harassment campaign against the Supreme Court will certainly continue. This latest attempt is a reminder that the Court will be a factor in the upcoming election and the future of Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.
Former President Donald Trump campaigned in 2016 with a promise to nominate justices “first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership.”
From that came Justice Neil Gorsuch, who President Trump described as “very much in the mold of” the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination followed, and was marked by a tumultuous confirmation hearing that included uncorroborated, decades-old allegations. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination and confirmation followed in 2020, giving President Trump three additional originalist justices on the bench to serve alongside Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito.
Since President Joe Biden took office, he nominated Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who was confirmed in 2022. With the 2024 election looming, President Biden is making promises to nominate his own brand of jurist to the Supreme Court.
I am hoping there are still a few rational Democrats in existence, so I am writing this post in hopes reason will pull them back from the abyss they are about to throw the United States into.
The following statements are indisputable, verifiable facts:
1. The criminal prosecution of the leading Presidential candidate of the opposition party is a wholly unprecedented event that violates all American political norms.
2. In recorded world history, literally every time a nation’s ruling political party acts against prevailing political norms and imprisons or kills the leadership of its major political opponent, the history books record such action as tyrannical despotism.
Think about it, just as examples—Ancient Greece and Socrates; Ancient Rome and Julius Caesar; the French Reign of Terror; Russia, Lenin and the Romanovs; Stalin and his purges; every other Soviet premier and the Gulag; Nazi Germany (enough said); the British Raj and Gandhi; Mao’s Cultural Revolution; Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and the Warsaw Pact versions of Poland and the Czech Republic; South Africa and Nelson Mandela; Vladimir Putin and everyone who ever opposes him; the list goes on and on and on. History records EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of this phenomenon as the embodiment of abject evil and tyranny.
3. When tyrants imprison their opponents, they always justify the action as being necessary and lawful. Always. Without exception. Additionally, when that happens, there are MILLIONS of citizens who believe in good faith that their leaders’ actions are justified. Average Germans in 1933, average Russians in 1917 and average Chinese in 1970 all GENUINELY BELIEVED that they were the good guys and the actions of their leaders were entirely justified.
These are facts.
Indisputable.
Undeniable.
Here’s another set of facts: in the USA in 2024, the ruling party is seeking to imprison the leader of the opposition party, acting against historical political norms; the leadership doing this believes its actions are necessary and lawful; and average American Democrats believe fervently that the actions of their leaders are entirely justified. The parallels to historic tyranny are powerful, precise and alarming.
Democrats, please consider these facts. I implore you to reconsider your actions. You are not the good guys. Instead, you are the average German of 1933 or the average Chinese citizen of 1970. I warn you now:
History is about to mark you as yet another despicable entry in the pantheon of evil tyranny.
Step back from the abyss. There is still time.
Jury is chosen in Hunter Biden’s federal firearms case and opening statements are set for Tuesday
WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — A jury was seated Monday in the federal gun case against President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, after prospective panelists were questioned about their thoughts on gun rights and drug addiction while the first lady watched from the front row of the courtroom.
Opening statements were set to begin Tuesday after the jurors — six men and six women plus four women serving as alternates — were instructed by Judge Maryellen Noreika not to talk or read about the case.
Hunter Biden has been charged in Delaware with three felonies stemming from a 2018 firearm purchase when he was, according to his memoir, in the throes of a crack addiction. He has been accused of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally having the gun for 11 days.
The case is going to trial following the collapse of a plea deal that would have avoided the spectacle of a trial so close to the 2024 election. Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty and has argued he’s being unfairly targeted by the Justice Department, after Republicans decried the now-defunct plea deal as special treatment for the Democratic president’s son.
Trump campaign already out with an ad on Biden’s Creepy Smirk
🔥🔥🔥
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 31, 2024
A picture is worth a thousand words: pic.twitter.com/psAXZcJ0t9
— ZNO 🇺🇸 (@therealZNO) May 31, 2024
What’s Next for Trump? The Facts, and Ways This Could Play Out.
The jury is in. Former president Donald Trump has been convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business records.
If you thought this country was divided before, we could likely see upheaval like never before. With many seeing this trial as politically motivated by the left to take him off the ballot, what happens next?
First off, he can still run for president.
The Constitution states a candidate must be at least 35 years old, a natural-born U.S. citizen, and a resident in the country for at least 14 years. There is nothing noted about criminal charges.
Can he pardon himself?
No. Because it is a state conviction, he will not be able to pardon himself as president. Presidents only have jurisdiction over federal convictions.
Can any state take him off the ballot?
They did try, but no. The 14th Amendment, which was passed after the Civil War, states that no one who has participated in an insurrection may run for the presidency. While some states have tried to claim this against Trump regarding Jan. 6th, they have been unsuccessful in proving it. He will still be on the ballot, as long as he is the Republican nominee.
How can he serve as president if he is also serving a criminal sentence?
It is expected that due to his age and this being his first conviction, he will not serve prison time. He may be given probation, which would mean he would have to ask permission every time he leaves the state of New York. If sentenced to time in prison, which would undoubtedly be frowned upon as a politically motivated move, he could still actually legally serve as president from behind bars. (Can you believe I just said those words?)
If he is sentenced to prison and wins the election, Trump’s attorneys might argue that sitting presidents can’t be imprisoned, just as Trump has argued that sitting presidents can’t be indicted.
The 25th Amendment also states that the vice president may take over responsibilities temporarily when the president is unable to perform them. Some have speculated that this could come into play if he has to delegate from behind bars.
What about his appeal?
Trump’s team will assuredly appeal. They will have 30 days from the New York verdict to file a notice of appeal and six months to file the full appeal. It is expected any appeals filed will not be resolved before the November election. It is possible that an appeals court would agree to stay Trump’s sentence until after the appeal is adjudicated.
What does this mean?
Regardless of what people think of Trump, most agree this went too far. Time will tell, but already we are seeing a surge in support for the former president. Reports have come in that his donation site crashed momentarily from extremely high traffic.
Those who accused Trump of being a dictator and trying to undermine our country’s laws now have weaponized our judicial system to take out an opponent they weren’t confident could be beat in the polls. The Democrats have started a dangerous war, and the losers are the people of this country. Election interference must not be tolerated. Trump will not give up so easily. We are witnessing another historic moment in our nation’s history. The next months could change everything.
Jonathan Turley Has a Lot to Say About the Trump Verdict
Legal expert Jonathan Turley reacted with strong words to the guilty verdict of former President Donald Trump, who was convicted on all 34 counts at his New York hush money trial after only two days of jury deliberations spanning over nine hours.
“I obviously disagree with this verdict as do many others,” Turley tweeted, saying that he believes that the case will be reversed “eventually” either at the state or federal level. “However,” the George Washington University Law School professor added, “this was the worst expectation for a trial in Manhattan. I am saddened by the result more for the New York legal system than the former president. I had hoped that the jurors might redeem the integrity of a system that has been used for political purposes.”
In an appearance on Fox News, Turley described the strange circumstances surrounding the conviction’s announcement.
Turley, who was there at the time of the verdict’s reading, called it “one of the most bizarre moments” he ever experienced in the courtroom. Judge Juan Merchan had just said the jury had not yet reached a decision and that they’d be dismissed for the day.
Some reporters actually started to gather their belongings and head out, Turley recounted. Then, upon returning to the bench, Merchan said that he was mistaken, producing a note he received from the jurors announcing: “We the jury have a verdict.””Throughout this time, you can feel the building pressure in that courtroom. The one person that didn’t seem to register it was the former president…” Turley recalled, adding, “[Trump] didn’t show any emotion at all as this mantra of guilty verdicts was read.”
“I think that this is one of those things that really embodies the entire Trump era. There were people who clearly were thrilled by the result, and there were people who were saddened by it. I was saddened by it. I disagree with this verdict,” Turley reiterated.
“I think, as I said before, that this case was legally unfounded. When they were reading those guilty verdicts, the one thing that we didn’t know is really what he was found guilty of. Because if you remember, the judge allowed the jury to find guilt on any one of the three secondary crimes,” Turley said. That meant the jury didn’t have to determine exactly what crime was committed.
Some of the captions are off, likely due to an AIBot making them, but that doesn’t really matter.
This can never be shared too many times. We are a Constitutional Republic; we are NOT a democracy. pic.twitter.com/xrWETRYwsp
— 🇺🇸 🍑Catherine🍑 🇺🇸 (@cat_barnes30) May 30, 2024
Cynical Publius
I get the sense that a lot of people across the entire political spectrum do not fully understand one of the very most basic reasons why the US federal government is such a tyrannical soup sandwich, so I thought I would write a quick primer.
The US Constitution limits the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states (or the People). To the extent the federal government has certain enumerated powers, it is up to Congress to make laws, and it is up to the President to enforce them. (Yes, I know that it is a very simplified explanation, but it’s basically true.)
Certain federal agencies housed in the Executive Branch have existed almost from the nation’s founding, but these related solely and directly to the President’s Constitutionally-enumerated powers, thus the War Department (for example) was necessary. However, starting with the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, we began to see Congress abdicating some of its lawmaking powers to federal agencies.
Through the following decades, with the desire of the so-called “progressives” to establish rule by “experts,” that abdication of Congressional law-making responsibilities went on warp drive, through Woodrow Wilson, through FDR and even through Richard Nixon, as numerous new federal agencies came into being.
Over those decades, more and more law-making authority was delegated to those federal agencies, most of which were housed in the Executive Branch and responsive to the President, thus greatly expanding the President’s powers beyond the original Constitutional intent.
Over time, even the powers of the third branch—the Judicial Branch—were co-opted into the Executive Branch as these administrative agencies were given the power to create their own courts, thus ruling on disputes regarding and enforcement of the very laws they made.
Penultimately, we have reached the point today where the Executive Branch has subsumed many of the Constitutional authorities of the Legislative and Judicial Branches, creating the tyrannical federal government we see today—one run by life-tenured, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who rule first and foremost for the growth and protection of their own agencies.
Now Donald Trump wants to undo much of this. He wants to unwind this cabal of extra-Constitutional power, and he wants to do so by taking that power OUT OF THE VERY BRANCH HE WILL RUN and return that power to the Constitutional authorities where it belongs. This effort to unwind the power in the Executive Branch is what worries Fascist Democrats when they talk about Trump “destroying democracy,” and it’s why they call him a “dictator.”
(Which is hilarious, since Trump would be the very first “dictator” in world history whose primary purpose is to reduce his own power, thereby enhancing democracy.)
So hopefully that makes things more clear. I left a lot out and simplified some very complex issues, but I think this covers things at the most basic level. If you want to know more, Google the following:
1. Administrative Procedure Act.
2. “Abolishing the Administrative Procedure Act.”
3. Chevron v. NRDC.
4. INS v. Chadha.
5. Wickard v. Filburn
Have a patriotic day please.
TPTB are apparently running scared and are getting their knives out for SloJoe.
A large group of news outlets have joined with Judicial Watch and the Heritage Foundation to sue Biden’s Department of Justice for the release of the audio of special counsel Robert Hur’s interview with Joe Biden in the investigation into classified documents found at the president’s residence and office.
Among those suing the department under the Freedom of Information Act for the release are ABC News, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, NBC News, Reuters, Univision, and the Washington Post.
The outlets are seeking all audio and video recordings of Hur’s five-hour interview with Biden. Biden has asserted executive privilege over the recordings.
“These recordings will help the public evaluate Hur’s decision not to charge Biden and to close the investigation into classified documents found at Biden’s former office and private residence,” the suit stated.
7 cuts in 43 seconds of speaking and the longest they could get was 10 seconds. You have to wonder how many takes had to be made to get this campaign ad patched together
Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana.
So today, the @TheJusticeDept is taking the next step to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug under federal law.
Here’s what that means: pic.twitter.com/TMztSyyFYm
— President Biden (@POTUS) May 16, 2024