General Michael Flynn still awaits sentencing. Meanwhile his new lawyer, Sidney Powell, is tormenting the prosecutors and the FBI, uncovering corruption in the FBI and the Department of Justice that, she credibly alleges, included the framing of General Flynn.
Is that too strong? I don’t think so. Yesterday Powell filed a reply brief in support of her motion to compel the production of more exculpating material by the prosecution, and to hold the prosecutors in contempt of court. Her recitation, which relies in part on text messages that I take it have come to light recently, makes a compelling case of FBI and prosecutorial misconduct. The reply brief is embedded below; I encourage you to read it in its entirety.
Powell’s most explosive charge is that the FBI falsified the Form 302 that recorded the content of its agents’ interview with Flynn in order to set him up for prosecution:
On February 10, 2017, the news broke—attributed to “senior intelligence officials”—that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak, contrary to what Vice President Pence had said on television previously. Overnight, the most important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302. Those changes added an unequivocal statement that “FLYNN stated he did not”—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote. This is a deceptive manipulation because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on this issue. He had talked to dozens of countries. Exs. 9, 10, 11.
Second, they added: “or if KISLYAK described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN.” That question and answer do not appear in the notes, yet it was made into a criminal offense. The typed version of the highly unusual “deliberative” 302 by that date already included an entire section from whole cloth that also serves as a criminal charge in the Information and purported factual basis regarding “Russia’s response” to any request by Flynn. The draft also shows that the agents moved a sentence to make it seem to be an answer to a question it was not.
If this is correct, the criminal complaint against Flynn should indeed be dismissed, and various people now or formerly at the FBI should face criminal prosecution.
Many of the juicy tidbits come from texts between Peter Strzok and his illicit lover, Andrew McCabe’s Special Counsel Lisa Page. These texts have dribbled out over a considerable period of time, and I take it that at least some of the ones quoted here are new. For example:
As news of the “salacious and unverified” allegations of the “Steele dossier” dominated the media, Strzok wrote to Page: “Sitting with Bill watching CNN. A TON more out. . . We’re discussing whether, now that this is out, we can use it as a pretext to go interview some people.”
So Hillary Clinton’s fictitious campaign “dossier” was explicitly viewed by the FBI as a “pretext to go interview some people.” Including General Flynn, apparently. The rot at Obama’s FBI went very deep.
So, parents, do you know what’s being taught at the schools your children attend?
islam teaches that reciting what the class was assigned: There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet is the central basic profession of faith. that is the first of the ‘Five Pillars’ of moslems. Proclaim that, as Mr Jasser notes in the article below, and moslems will consider you a moslem.
Granted that the Supreme Court can’t take all cases, but what do you suppose would have been the ruling from the lower court and the SC reaction if a teacher had assigned that everyone recite or write out ‘the sinner’s prayer’?
One of the religious liberty cases the Supreme Court Justices won’t be hearing this term is the issue of Maryland High School student Caleigh Wood, who refused to take part in a school assignment to write the Islamic conversion prayer that states “… there is no god but Allah,” because she believed it directly contradicted her Christian faith.
The High Court denied a petition filed on behalf of the 11th grader, angering one conservative commentator who saw it as caving in to the indoctrination in schools and on college campuses.
“This is not just a violation of the First Amendment but an ongoing, albeit subtle, diffusion of Islam in our Western society,” the Rev. Mario Alex Protello wrote.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of Thomas More Law Center, which filed the petition on Wood’s behalf said, “The schools are promoting Islam over Christianity or any other religion, and you have a double standard, which we think is a violation of the establishment clause.” Thompson also said in the firm’s press release, “Under the pretext of teaching history or social studies, public schools across America are promoting the religion of Islam in ways that would never be tolerated for Christianity or any other religion.”
Thompson said that on top of getting an F in the class, Wood was also made to watch a pro-Islam “PowerPoint presentation that denigrated her religion and basically said that Christians are not as faithful as Muslims. So we strongly believed that this was a violation.”
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in February that the assignment to write the Islamic conversion prayer … did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Charles County Public Schools released a statement after the Supreme Court’s denial saying, “The decision reaffirms a favorable U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling earlier this year that the school did not “impermissibly endorse any religion and did not compel Wood to profess any belief.”
One Muslim scholar strongly disagrees. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said: “They made this the student recite the Islamic call to call of witness a prayer, which makes her a Muslim. That’s absurd.”
There is no way that a 7 year old child has the intellectual capacity to even understand ‘trans’ as anything more than playacting much less make a life changing decision about it. This is mommy so hating her ex that she’ll destroy her own child just because he shares half his father’s DNA. Even more disgusting is that a jury was so stupid as to sign off on this crap-for-brains idiocy.
A Texas judge ruled on Thursday that Jeff Younger is entitled to a say in his seven-year-old son James’s gender-transition process.
Judge Kim Cooks awarded Younger joint conservatorship over his son with mother Anne Georgulas, according to Life Site News.
Georgulas had previously insisted on pursuing James’s gender transition, and was backed by counselors and therapists who testified on her behalf that he is transgender.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced an investigation into the case of a 7-year-old boy whose mother plans to transition him to a girl against his father’s wishes.
Abbott, a Republican, tweeted that the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services is looking into details of James Younger’s case. A judge was expected to make a final verdict in the court case Thursday.
FYI the matter of 7 year old James Younger is being looked into by the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. #JamesYounger
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) October 23, 2019
Everyone who isn’t a Democrat is talking about the coup attempts against Trump; first the fake Russian collusion story and now the fake “whistleblower” story. But the real coup is proceeding apace and has already stolen the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution to we the people.
Starting in the 1930s, politicians began stealthily transferring power from themselves, the elected representatives of we the people, to unelected bureaucrats and judges.
We the people can’t get rid of bureaucrats or judges via elections, so they can operate without our consent with impunity. To get rid of them requires a significant majority of honest politicians in Congress, which hasn’t been manifest for quite some time.
The politicians say the depredations of the administrators and the dishonest judges are not their, the politicians’, fault, so they mislead voters into re-electing the very politicians who refuse to punish administrators and judges who violate their oath of office.
Much has been written about the rise of the administrative state, but the simple reality is that most of the rules and edicts from Washington that we the people have to follow aren’t voted on or approved by the people we elect. Rather, they’re ushered in by nameless and faceless government employees.
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review a case challenging the State of Illinois’ ban on concealed carry by non-residents, asserting that without high court review, “virtually all Americans will be deprived of their full Second Amendment rights while in the State of Illinois, based on nothing more than their state of residence.”
Joining SAF in this legal action are the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Illinois Carry and nine private citizens. They are represented by attorney David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, Ill., a veteran of Second Amendment cases in Illinois and elsewhere.
“This is a case that literally begs for Supreme Court attention,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “When the Court ruled in the 2008 Heller case that the Second Amendment protected a fundamental right, it was clear that this right belongs to everyone, not just the residents of an individual state. The Seventh Circuit held in Moore v. Madigan that the carrying of firearms in public for self-defense is a fundamental right, but under existing Illinois restrictions, that right has been limited to Illinois residents and citizens from only four other states.
“All the plaintiffs in this case are asking for is to be treated equally to Illinois residents,” he added. “They’re not asking for special treatment. They will take the training required by state law and abide by all the other rules.”
ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson added, “It is unfair that people from out of state cannot get an Illinois concealed carry license. We intend to remedy that.”
It is illegal to induce an alien to enter or remain in the United States illegally. It has been so for many years under Title 8 United States Code Section 1324, Bringing In or Harboring Certain Aliens. However, a group of Kritarchs have decided to overturn years of precedent and legal usage to declare that the First Amendment protects alien smugglers, corrupt politicians, and those with a personal relationship with an illegal alien to induce and encourage illegal activity.
This is not about a debate concerning whether this prohibition should be in Federal law, but a claim that aiding and abetting a crime is not a crime. Note that the analogy of this crime is also contained in Title 18 USC Section 2 Principals and 18 USC Section 3, Accessory After The Fact. Both are long standing statutes that criminalize not speech, but speech involving itself in a criminal offense. (As when an armed robber says “Hands up”, or a blackmailer says “Pay up!” )
The Supreme Court will decide whether a federal law that makes it a crime to “encourage or induce” someone to enter the country illegally violates the First Amendment.
The 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of AppealsCircus said the law is unconstitutional in December 2018. The justices added the case to the docket for their forthcoming term Friday.
“The provisions here are primarily directed at conduct, not speech,” the government’s petition to the high court reads. “To the extent they even reach speech, they do so only incidentally by prohibiting communications that foster unlawful activity by particular individuals, which have long been understood to be outside the scope of the First Amendment.”
The dispute involves an immigration consultant called Evelyn Sineneng-Smith. Federal prosecutors allege that she offered to enroll illegal aliens in a Department of Labor certification program for nearly $6,000. She allegedly did so knowing that her clients were not qualified, and were therefore guaranteed rejection.
[The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Encouraging Illegal Immigration Is Protected Speech, by Kevin Daley, The Daily Caller, October 4, 2019]
The three judge panel on the 9th Circuit who made this ruling are Democrat judges. The law doesn’t seem to be part of their legal reasoning, only imposing their will on the nation, a dictatorship of judges, a kritarchy.
The Green New Deal, and similar environmental initiatives, have little to do with the environment and much to do with the Left’s desire to control every aspect of our lives. Because everything we do, beginning with breathing, involves emission of carbon dioxide or other “greenhouse gases.” AOC’s Green New Deal specifically proposed, among other things, that all air travel be banned and that all cows be done away with because they produce methane.
People who don’t follow current events closely may think that we who sound an alarm over the dictatorial potential inherent in today’s environmental activism exaggerate the problem. No one, some would assume, could possibly take the Green New Deal’s war on cows seriously.
In fact, it is deadly serious. Today the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an opinion in In the Matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Daley Farms of Lewiston, LLP – 2018 Dairy Expansion Utica Township. Daley Farms wants to expand its dairy operation, which naturally entails having more cows. Daley Farms dutifully went through the permitting process with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the MPCA granted the necessary permits. That wasn’t good enough for far-left organizations like the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, which appealed the MPCA’s grant of permits to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. MCEA argued, among other things, that the agency hadn’t taken into account the methane emissions that more cows would generate.
Shockingly, the Minnesota Court of Appeals found this objection persuasive. It reversed the MPCA’s permit issuance and sent the matter back to the agency for further proceedings. This is what the court said about the gases emitted by cows and global warming:
The MPCA’s response to the MCEA’s comment suggests that it did not consider greenhouse-gas emissions before it denied an [Environmental Impact Statement]. Not only are greenhouse-gas emissions absent from the animal-feedlot [Environmental Assessment Worksheet] form, but they are also missing from the EIS order issued by the MPCA after the public-comment period. The MPCA does not dispute that large dairy-farm operations like Daley Farms emit methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change, and that greenhouse-gas emissions could have the potential for significant environmental effects.8 The MPCA’s reliance on the absence of greenhouse-gas emissions on the animal-feedlot EAW form shows that the MPCA failed to take a “hard look” because it “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.” See CARD, 713 N.W.2d at 832.
We acknowledge Daley Farms’ assertion that there is no easy measure for determining the environmental impact from a feedlot permit because of the substantial difficulty and uncertainty in estimating emissions from animal feedlots. See Lightfoot, supra, at 1094 (pointing out that our decision in Holsten “recognizes that certain analyses relevant to climate change, such as determining the impacts of a project’s discrete greenhouse gas emissions or how changes in the climate may affect models used to forecast a project’s environmental effects, are beyond the state of the art”). But although it may be difficult to measure the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions, the MPCA did not offer this as an explanation when it denied the EIS for Daley Farms’ project because it did not consider the issue.
We conclude that the MPCA failed to take a “hard look” at potentially significant environmental effects and its decision lacks “articulated standards and reflective findings.”
If this decision stands, every farmer in Minnesota who wants to add more cows (or other animals, presumably) to his farm will have to pay lawyers to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement that calculates the effect of the additional farm animals on the Earth’s average temperature. I can save them some money: the impact is zero, to however many decimal points you want to work it out to.
Is this a big deal? It certainly is. Daley Farms has been trying since July 2017 to expand its operation. God only knows how much money it has spent already. With the Court’s decision today, Daley Farms will either go several more years, and spend much more money, or else give up on expanding its dairy farm.
The need for endless environmental assessments and filings, and the invitation to lavishly-funded left-wing groups to challenge permits issued by state and federal agencies, explain why we can no longer do anything. We can’t build a dam, we can’t replace a pipeline, we can’t build a power plant (especially a nuclear one). With this decision, we can’t even expand a dairy farm.
Today’s decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals (which may have been justified by a completely different issue that the Court addressed) should be a wake-up call to all Americans that liberals aren’t kidding when they say they want to prevent us from eating meat, or drinking milk or consuming other dairy products, in the name of “climate change.” The battle has been joined, and if normal Americans don’t get engaged, the Left will win. As they did today.
Again; I’m not anti-Cop. I’m anti stupid Cop. And this one qualifies.
A former Fort Worth officer has been arrested and charged with murder in the shooting death of Atatiana Jefferson, according to jail and court records.
Aaron York Dean, 34, resigned from Fort Worth Police Department on Monday morning. Early Saturday morning, he shot and killed Jefferson, 28, inside her home on Allen Avenue while responding to a call from a neighbor about the front door being open, police said.
Dean was listed as an inmate in the Tarrant County Jail as of 6:50 p.m. Monday night, according to records.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) welcomes the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division’s dismissal with prejudice of the Primus Group v. Smith & Wesson, et. al. case. The decision was delivered Oct. 9, brushing aside the frivolous claims against several AR-15 firearms manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Remington Arms Company, Sig Sauer, Sturm, Ruger & Company, Colt’s Manufacturing and Armalite.
“This decision by the federal judge to dismiss with prejudice this frivolous case is pleasing, if not unexpected,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs and General Counsel. “These are lawful and federally-regulated AR-15 modern sporting rifle manufacturers that make semiautomatic rifles for lawful purposes. The judge was absolutely correct to assert that the proper venue to establish public firearms policy is through the legislature and not the courts.”
Primus Group, LLC, is an entertainment venue in Columbus, Ohio. The limited liability company filed suit after the tragic murders in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio. They claimed racketeering, intentional misrepresentation claims and “a clear and present danger” of all American lives due to “assault weapons.” The modern sporting rifles manufactured and sold by the companies named as defendants are semiautomatic rifles, meaning one round is fired for each trigger pull.
The court found the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case against the defendants. This decision rightfully asserts that those who purposefully and criminally misuse firearms are the ones who are responsible for those crimes. It further affirms that activist lawsuits to prompt judicial action are not the proper avenue to establish policy.
They couldn’t find enough support for their initiative petition, so now they try lawfare. There is a solution for this kind of crap, but we’re not at the point where it’s palatable…..yet.
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A Democratic state representative from Oklahoma City and other advocates for more restrictive gun laws filed a lawsuit Monday challenging a new Oklahoma law that will allow people to carry firearms without a background check or training.
State Rep. Jason Lowe sued in Oklahoma County, arguing that the law violates a state constitutional requirement that bills deal with only one subject matter.
“This fight is far from over,” Lowe said at a news conference. “We believe this law is dangerous.”
Dubbed “constitutional carry” by its supporters, the bill signed by Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt would allow most adults to carry firearms, concealed or openly, without the currently required background check or training. Exceptions would include anyone in the country illegally or those convicted of certain crimes. Firearms would still be prohibited in certain locations, including public buildings, schools, professional sporting events, casinos and bars. The bill, which was the first Stitt signed into law, is scheduled to take effect Nov. 1.
Lowe and other advocates for tighter gun laws already fell short of gathering enough signatures to send the issue to a vote of the people.
In the lawsuit, attorneys for Lowe and the other plaintiffs argue that the bill deals not just with carrying firearms, but also with self-defense, a campus weapons ban, the transportation of firearms, preemption and other subjects.
“In short, like the numerous acts of the Legislature that have previously been struck down for violating the single-subject rule, HB 2597 addresses ’multiple subjects that are not germane, relative and cognate to a common theme and purpose,” the lawsuit states.
Stitt’s office declined to comment while the lawsuit is pending.
One of the law’s biggest proponents, Don Spencer, executive director of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association, said he believes Lowe’s attempt is a last-ditch effort to derail the law and that it will ultimately fail.
“We’re considering it kind of a Hail Mary attempt, and we’re confident the attorney general’s office will deal with it appropriately, and constitutional carry will go into effect on Nov. 1, as scheduled,” Spencer said.
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today cheered the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to move forward with a case that challenges a New York City gun law that was so restrictive the city amended it, and then tried to get the high court to dismiss the case.
“We’re delighted that the Supreme Court will move this important case forward,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief in support of overturning this egregious attempt to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. We are confident that the high court will ultimately rule in favor of Second Amendment rights.”
The city scrambled to change the law once the court decided to accept the case for review earlier this year. The challenge is brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.
“It’s outrageous that the city has furiously tried to derail this case by changing the law,” Gottlieb stated. “That says volumes not only about the city’s fear of having to defend their restrictive gun control law before the court, but it also suggests to us that the city knew all along their law would not pass the constitutional smell test under any level of scrutiny, and they panicked.
“New York, and other state and local governments, have been getting away with adopting ridiculously oppressive gun regulations because lower courts have thumbed their noses at previous Supreme Court rulings in favor of the Second Amendment,” he added.
“Equally outrageous, if not moreso,” Gottlieb observed, “was the attempt by Capitol Hill Democrats led by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse to bully the high court by filing a brief to dismiss the case or face the possibility that Democrats would pack the court. How dare Whitehouse and his associates attempt such coercion. We’re proud of the Supreme Court justices for ignoring this threat to their independence as a separate branch of government.
“The Democrats’ political demagoguery obviously backfired, and rightly so,” he said. “It just might cost them in November 2020.”
NYSRPA v. NYC: Mootness Denied It’s going to trial.
18-280 NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. 10
The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.
In a much-needed victory for election integrity a judge has upheld Iowa’s voter identification law, rejecting claims by a leftist open borders group that the measure is unconstitutional because it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. When the group, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), filed the lawsuit, the head of its Iowa chapter referred to the state’s voter ID law as “an attack on the Latino community” that places many restrictions on the right to vote. He also said the measure, passed in 2017, is a form of “voter suppression.”
Under the law Iowans must present a valid form of identification before voting in elections. Acceptable IDs include a driver’s license, non-operator’s license, passport, military ID, veteran’s ID or state-issued voter card. Voter ID laws are created to prevent election fraud and 35 states have enacted them, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue. In 2008 the high court upheld Indiana’s Voter ID law, ruling that the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process outweighed the insufficiently proven burdens the law may impose on voters. “There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” the nation’s highest court wrote in its decision. Even the famously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of voter ID laws. In a decision involving Arizona’s measure, the federal appellate court found that the “photo identification requirement is not an invidious restriction” and does not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Yet states continue to spend a fortune defending their voter ID measures in court, mostly against leftwing groups that assert they discriminate against minorities and the poor. LULAC filed its Iowa lawsuit in 2018 and the case went to trial this year, around the end of June. The Latino civil rights group claimed the law makes it harder for certain citizens—especially minorities—in Iowa to vote and that it violates sections of the state Constitution that guarantee the right to vote, due process, equal treatment under the law and freedom of speech. The defendant is Iowa’s Secretary of State, Paul Pate. The Polk County District Judge, Joseph Seidlin, who presided over the case wrote in his decision that “for the vast majority of eligible voters in Iowa, the voter identification requirement poses no real burden. They either present a driver’s license or nonoperator’s identification card which they already have, or a voter ID card which they either have or can easily obtain for free.” Seidlin also found that the evidence presented in his courtroom failed to demonstrate what LULAC alleged; that the burden on young, old, female, minority and poor voters to show an approved form of identification at the polls is greater than the rest of the population.
Pate, Iowa’s Secretary of State, applauded the court for upholding the principles of Voter ID and election integrity. “My goal has always been to make it easy to vote, but hard to cheat,” Pate said in a statement following the ruling. “Iowans have overwhelmingly voiced their support for Voter ID and this law ensures voters will be asked to provide identification before casting their ballot.”
Remember last month when San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization and ordered city employees to “take every reasonable step to limit” business interactions with the NRA and its supporters? The one that our David French labeled “a retaliatory public attack on constitutionally protected speech”?
In a formal memo to city officials, San Francisco mayor London Breed declared that “no [municipal] department will take steps to restrict any contractor from doing business with the NRA or to restrict City contracting opportunities for any business that has any relationship with the NRA.”
The memo declares, “resolutions making policy statements do not impose duties on City departments, change any of the City’s existing laws or policies, or control City departments’ exercise of discretion.”
“Through these actions and our public advocacy, we hope the message is now clear,” NRA CEO and executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said in a released statement. “The NRA will always fight to protect our members and the constitutional freedoms in which they believe.”
“The memo serves as a clear concession and a well-deserved win for the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel for the NRA. “It is unfortunate that in today’s polarized times, some elected officials would rather silence opposing arguments than engage in good-faith debate. The NRA – America’s oldest civil rights organization – won’t stand for that.”
The NRA is challenging a similar law passed by the Los Angeles city council that requiring city contractors to disclose any ties they have to the gun-rights group. Back in August, a federal judge denied a request by the city to dismiss the suit.
Well, that’s going to cut into their vacation plans.
A federal court ruled University of Iowa officials must pay out of their own pockets for discriminating against a prominent Christian student group, calling the university’s conduct “ludicrous” and “incredibly baffling” during a hearing last week.
Judge Stephanie M. Rose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled Friday that the University of Iowa and its officers violated constitutional law when they kicked InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, and other religious groups, off the campus in June 2018 for requiring leaders to uphold Christian beliefs — but giving a pass to secular student groups that also have leadership requirements.
In “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly report that Leland Keyser —who was unable to corroborate high-school friend Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation of youthful sexual misconduct—says she felt pressured by a group of common acquaintances to vouch for it anyway. The book quotes an unnamed male member of the group suggesting in a text message: “Perhaps it makes sense to let everyone in the public know what her condition is”—a remark the reporters describe as reading “like a veiled reference” to Ms. Keyser’s “addictive tendencies.” (The authors quote her as saying she told investigators “my whole history of using.”)
A concerted effort to mislead the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Senate, especially if it involved threats to potential witnesses, could violate several federal criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. 1001 (lying to federal officials), 18 U.S.C. 1505 (obstruction of official proceedings) and 18 U.S.C. 1622 (subornation of perjury). Investigating and, if the evidence is sufficient, prosecuting such offenses would deter similar misconduct in the future.
The biggest Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly a decade, explained
Gun control supporters are desperate — and have already taken drastic steps — to get the Supreme Court to dismiss this case.
Last January, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, the first major Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court in nearly a decade — and also the first since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement shifted the Court dramatically to the right.
The case centers on an unusual — and recently changed — New York City rule that limited where gun owners with a certain kind of permit were allowed to bring their guns.
Gun control advocates, including policymakers in both New York City and the New York state legislature, fear a big loss in the Supreme Court and are desperate to make the case go away. Indeed, New York City changed their gun rules after the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case, and state legislators enacted a new law forbidding the city from bringing back the old rules — all in the hopes of obviating the need for the Court to weigh in. Because the legal controversy between the city and the plaintiffs is now over, the city asked the Court to dismiss this case as moot.
The justices are scheduled to discuss whether to dismiss the case at their October 1 conference……………..
Why gun rights advocates have so much to gain
A few months before his death this summer, retired Justice John Paul Stevens offered a surprisingly candid window into the Court’s internal deliberations.
In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The Court split along familiar ideological lines, with Kennedy joining his fellow conservatives in the 5-4 majority.
Heller, however, was hardly a total victory for advocates of gun rights. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion is riddled with caveats. Heller suggests that “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” all remain valid, as are bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
In a November interview with the New York Times’ Adam Liptak, Stevens revealed that Kennedy asked for “some important changes” to Scalia’s original draft of the Heller opinion. At Stevens’s urging, Kennedy requested language stating that Heller “should not be taken to cast doubt” on many existing gun laws. Without Kennedy’s intervention, in other words, Heller may not have included the important language limiting the scope of the Second Amendment.
But Kennedy is gone. And his replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appears very eager to expand gun rights.
Shorter after Heller was decided, the District of Columbia’s government passed legislation banning semi-automatic “assault weapons” and requiring gun owners to register their firearms. Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, also led the challenge to this new gun law, and the case — Heller v. District of Columbia — was eventually heard by a panel of three Republican-appointed judges.
Two of those judges largely upheld the law in 2011 (although they called for further proceedings on the registration requirement). The third judge was Brett Kavanaugh, who claimed that “both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.” (This second iteration of the Heller litigation was never heard by the Supreme Court.)
And Kavanaugh’s dissent also went even further than that. The future justice did not simply argue that this specific DC law should be struck down. He also suggested that nearly a decade of Second Amendment jurisprudence should be tossed out.
Now you can see why the demoncraps decided that Kavanaugh’s nomination was a hill to die on.
And now you can see why they’re going crazy ape bonkers about impeaching Trump.
Pelosi and the rest of them know too well that they’re not going to get Trump ejected from office. What they hope to do is make the nomination for whoever is going to replace Ginsburg think twice about wanting to go through the same crap and/or also give them some sort of political cover “He’s tainted by being impeached!” if it happens before the 2020 election.
Well, if it’s good for one denomination’s agency, it’s good for the rest.
In a victory for religious freedom, a federal judge in Michigan ruled a Catholic adoption agency that contracts with the state will be allowed to refuse to handle adoption requests that would place children with LGBTQ couples.
The judge pointedly noted that in opposing the agency, the state’s attorney general engaged in a “targeted attack” on the agency’s “sincerely held religious belief.”
The ruling came Sept. 26 in a case cited as Buck v. Gordon, which involved Lansing-based St. Vincent Catholic Charities, along with Chad and Melissa Buck, parents of five children with special needs, and Shamber Flore, a former foster child.
St. Vincent has stated that “as a Catholic organization, [it] cannot provide a written recommendation to the State evaluating and endorsing a family situation that would conflict with [its] religious beliefs.” This means it can’t endorse adoption for “unmarried or LGBTQ couples consistent with its Catholic mission.”
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel was elected Nov. 6, 2018, becoming the first openly gay person to win statewide office in the Mitten State, as well as the first Democrat to hold the post of attorney general in two decades.
Nessel refused to defend a 2015 state law protecting the agency’s religious freedoms because, in her own words, she “could not justify using the state’s money” to defend “a law whose only purpose is discriminatory animus,” Judge Robert J. Jonker of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan wrote in his ruling.