Nashville Shooter's Manifesto May Finally See the Light of Day as Legal Battle Heats Up

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

Six months after the Covenant School shooting in Nashville, which left six people dead, a Tennessee Court of Appeals panel heard arguments on Monday over the disposition of the shooter’s manifesto, which has not been released to the public. This development stems from a lawsuit filed by the National Police Association against Nashville and Davidson County.

The legal action is a response to refusals to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request to disclose records related to the shooter. The panel has not yet issued a ruling, but it is possible that we might be a step closer to understanding the shooter’s motives.

Monday a three judge panel heard arguments from those who want the writing's released, and others who say that would only do more damage.

The appeals hearing stems from a lawsuit filed by the National Police Association against Nashville and Davidson County after a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records was rejected.

Early on in the investigation, Metro Nashville Police Chief John Drake said the shooter left behind a journal in the car at the school parking lot. The lawsuit filed on behalf of the National Police Association seeks to have the writings of shooter released to the public.

Paul Krog, an appellant, noted that people on both sides of the issue “believe they will be able to prevent future school shootings with their arguments.”

The National Police Association and the Tennessee Firearms Association argue that releasing the manifesto would help local governments create strategies to prevent future school shootings. On the other side, people insist that publicizing the documents could possibly inspire other school shootings. “There’s a very real risk that if the shooter’s writings are released, one or more children may harm themselves,” said Eric G. Osborne, an appellee representing the other side.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit aim to release not only the manifesto, but also all internal records, emails, texts, and communication within the Metro Police Department related to the shooter and her motivations. Those arguing for transparency point out that understanding the reasons why the shooter committed the act is critical for public awareness and policy.

Conversely, those arguing for concealing the manifesto, including some of the families of the victims, could inspire copycats. “No good can come from releasing the dangerous and harmful writings of a mentally-damaged person,” the parents said in a legal brief.

Much of the debate around this matter is centered on political concerns due to the shooter being transgender. Critics have argued that keeping the manifesto hidden is an effort to cover up indications that the shooter’s gender identity could have played a role in the shooting. Government officials have not confirmed whether this claim has merit, which has only fueled speculation on this issue.

This case embodies a clash between the public’s right to know and concerns about public safety. The court’s decision could set a significant precedent that goes beyond Nashville and might affect how other law enforcement agencies handle these matters going forward. Until this case is resolved, the question will remain: Will the nation ever get to understand what motivated the shooting?

X22, And we Know, and more- Oct 18

 

Iran Warns Expansion of War on ‘Other Fronts’ and ‘Preemptive Action’ Coming Soon

Debra Heine reporting for American Greatness 

On Monday, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs warned that the expansion of the Hamas-Israel war on “other fronts” is becoming “inevitable,” and “preemptive action” could be expected “in the coming hours.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian declared on state television Monday that Israel will not be allowed to take any additional action in the Gaza Strip without major consequences.

“Leaders of the resistance will not allow [Israel] to take any action in Gaza … All options are open and we cannot be indifferent to the war crimes committed against the people of Gaza,” Amirabdollahian said, as translated by Reuters.

“The resistance front is capable of waging a long-term war with [Israel] … in the coming hours, we can expect a preemptive action by the resistance front,” he added. “If the crimes in Gaza do not stop immediately, new fronts will be opened.”

Amirabdollahian issued further warnings on X later Monday, posting that time is running out for political solutions to the war.

“Today I talked with my colleagues in Malaysia , Tunisia and Pakistan,” he wrote. “It was emphasized on the need to immediately stop the killings and war crimes of the Zionists in Gaza and to send humanitarian aid to this region. I stated that the time for political solutions is running out and the possible expansion of the war on other fronts is approaching the inevitable stage.”

“We emphasized the necessity of immediately stopping the genocide and war crimes committed by the Zionists in Gaza and expediting the sending of humanitarian aid to it,” Amirabdollahian added in a subsequent post. “I said that time for political solutions is running out and that the possibility of expanding the scope of the war on other fronts is approaching the stage that cannot be avoided.”

Over the weekend, Amirabdollahian met in Qatar with Hamas politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh.

In another worrisome development, the Islamic Republic’s official international broadcasting radio network on Monday declared in Arabic that “The victory of Allah is near.”

At least 2,808 people have been killed by Israeli attacks in Gaza, and more than 1,400 people were killed by Hamas terrorists during the sneak attack in Israel on Oct. 7.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei celebrated the Hamas operation on X: “Whatever crimes the Zionist regime commits will fail to compensate for its disgraceful defeat during the Al-Aqsa Storm operation.”

Khamenei also warned Tuesday that if Israel continued to bomb Gaza, “no one will be able to stop the Muslims and the resistance forces.”

On Tuesday, Amirabdollahian blamed the United States for the ongoing hostilities in a phone conversation with the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell.

The Iranian foreign minister reportedly said “the United States’ non-constructive policies and encouraging the Zionist regime to stage more strikes against civilians in Gaza is an important factor in the continuation and spread of the war.”

Khamenei also took aim at the United States on Tuesday, declaring that “the U.S. must be held responsible” for its support for Israel.

“Our numerous intelligence reports show that the US is formulating the Zionist regime’s current policy, and what is being done is governed by US policymaking,” he posted on X. “The US must be held responsible for this situation.”

In response to Iran’s threatening statements, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby claimed on NBC’s TODAY that there is “no specific indication” that Iran, or anybody else, “is preparing to widen and deepen this conflict” in Israel.

Update:

Tuesday evening, the embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Syria posted on X a threatening message in Hebrew: “time is up.”

The Entire Premise Of Trump’s J6 Trial Is An Affront To Free Elections And Rule Of Law

The imposition of a gag order on Trump means a judge can decide what the GOP front-runner can and cannot say in a presidential campaign.

by John Daniel Davidson for The Federalist

A remarkable thing happened on Monday in former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial over his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a gag order effectively prohibiting Trump, currently the leading GOP candidate for president, from defending himself in public ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

The gag order means Trump cannot speak publicly about the trial, potential witnesses, court personnel, or Special Counsel Jack Smith, the federal prosecutor who requested the gag order and characterized it as “modest” and “permissible.”

As my colleague Tristan Justice pointed out in these pages yesterday, that means Trump is barred from campaigning against his chief political opponent, which isn’t just President Joe Biden but the entire federal government, especially the Justice Department.

It also means there’s a potentially limitless number of things Trump could say on the campaign trail that would violate the gag order. Julie Kelly, who was in the courtroom Monday, noted on X (formerly Twitter) that there was an entire debate about whether it would be appropriate to allow Trump to use the phrase “Crooked Joe Biden.” A reporter for OANN relayed an exchange between Chutkan and Trump’s defense attorney about whether Trump could call Smith a “thug.” Chutkan, an Obama appointee with a long track record of politically charged Jan. 6 rulings, said she didn’t think such language was “necessary to advance a political campaign,” as if she’s any more competent to decide what sort of campaign rhetoric is necessary than she is to assess the value of Mar-a-Lago.

But set aside the insanity of a federal judge telling a leading presidential candidate — or any political candidate — what they can and cannot say on the campaign trail, as if judges are now the supreme arbiters of American political discourse. The gag order just underscores how insane and farcical this entire trial is.

Recall that Smith didn’t indict Trump on charges that he incited a riot on Jan. 6 or that he committed treason — nothing as concrete as that. He indicted Trump for expressing his opinion that the 2020 election was stolen. You might think it’s crazy that Trump thinks he won in 2020, but millions of Americans believe it — and they are free to say so thanks to the First Amendment. Trump, too, should be free to say it as often and as loudly as he likes. As Jonathan Turley said when Trump was indicted back in August, “If you take a red pen to all of the material presumptively protected by the First Amendment, you can reduce much of the indictment to haiku.”

The actual charges Trump faces are conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. What all that amounts to, though, is merely an assertion that Trump’s statements about the election were false and he knew it. But even if that were the case, so what? This is America. You’re allowed to lie in a political campaign. Joe Biden lies all the time, as does his lackey Merrick Garland at the Justice Department. Whether Trump lied is a political question to be decided by voters, not some thug like Jack Smith.

So what the trial comes down to is that Trump said some things about 2020 that Biden and Garland and Smith didn’t like, and they decided to prosecute him for it. That’s it. That’s the whole case. Any judge with even a passing familiarity with the First Amendment would have thrown the case out on day one.

But that didn’t happen, and now we have this garbage commie show trial unfolding in the middle of a presidential election cycle. How is Trump supposed to campaign when he’s barred from talking about the No. 1 threat to the rule of law and free elections in America? He’s not, which is the entire point of this: to keep Trump out of the White House.

Stepping back though, this isn’t only about Trump. It’s also about what the federal government thinks it can do under the guise of enforcing the law. If the Justice Department can indict Trump for speaking out about the election, it can indict any one of us for the same thing, the First Amendment be damned.

My colleague Sean Davis said Trump should reject this “Soviet insanity” and just violate the gag order to force Chutkan and the Biden administration to choose whether to dispense with the pretense of the rule of law and free elections or just go ahead and rig the election out in the open by jailing Trump in the middle of the election for the crime of calling Biden’s DOJ corrupt. “Make them do it, so we can finally dispense with the fiction that democracy actually exists in this country anymore. Make them do it out in the open for the entire world to see.”

He’s right. The entire premise of this trial should be rejected. The whole thing is illegitimate. It makes a mockery of our justice system and a mockery of our Constitution. There’s no point debating the specifics of it with Democrats, of arguing over this or that legal aspect of the trial, because to do so concedes the premise that Trump might have committed a crime by expressing his opinion about the 2020 election and that you can be prosecuted for something like that in America.

At a rally in Iowa on Monday, Trump said he was “willing to go to jail if that’s what it takes for our country to win and become a democracy again.” Let’s hope he’s serious, because the only way out of this is for Trump to press the issue, defy the illegitimate gag order, and let the chips fall where they may.  

President Trump and NYC Legal Team Outline the Farce in New York Case Against Trump’s Business

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

President Trump and Alina Habba speak to the media following another day of nonsense testimony in the New York civil case against Donald Trump.

President Trump again reiterates the construct of the case against him as a political effort with no foundational premise in legal statute.  The lending institutions did their own due diligence; there are no victims, all the banks and finance offices were repaid with interest and ahead of schedule; there were no defaults and all lenders were satisfied with the terms, conditions and results.   WATCH:

BELOW: President Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, then reads the first page of the lending agreement to the media so they can better understand the nature of the fraudulent case being attempted by the State of New York.

Obtuse, Thy Name is Chutkan

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

In one of the most disingenuously undefined judicial rulings in recent memory, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan says President Trump may not “target” a member of the court or prosecution in his rebuke of their official offices against him. [3-page pdf HERE]

[SOURCE]

Obviously, Judge Chutkan intends to give herself the most latitude possible when defining what terms of speech may end up being considered “targeting.” However, criticism is not a possible definition in ordinary parlance. So, we’ll see.

Additionally, Chutkan did not outline what -if any- punishment would be levied in the event she considers any statement to be considered “targeting.” The lawfare games continue…

A Lawless Justice System Is The Perfect Tool For Criminalizing Opposition To Democrats

The weaponization of the justice system is not an accident. It is the foreseeable cause of ending limited government.

Joy Pullman reporting for The Federalist

Democrats’ successful 100-year war against the rule of law in America made it possible for a court to ban Democrats’ top opponent from criticizing them Monday. Because the United States is, in multiple aspects, effectively lawless after years of leftist-detonated norms and institutions, Democrats are now free to not just threaten Donald Trump with several hundred years in prison but anyone they so choose to target.

Not only must Trump spend millions in multiple venues for the crime of effectively publicly disagreeing with Democrats, but as of Monday, he is gagged from talking about this situation. That means merely being a party to a lawsuit has erased his First Amendment rights.

Prosecutors are well aware that they can convict just about anyone they want. That’s partly because American laws and regulations are now so voluminous that enforcement depends on discretion: picking and choosing whom to go after. The law has ballooned far beyond punishing things everyone knows are wrong to being used as a social control tool.

This is why the U.S. Department of Justice can go after peaceful pro-life demonstrators and people who merely walked on public property on Jan. 6, 2020. It’s the American enactment of the famous Soviet secret police head’s dictum, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

We have seen this incredible power used most incredibly with the various prosecutions of Trump, but it could happen to any of us at any time. That makes the United States a functionally lawless country ripe for abusing anyone through the justice system, not just the government’s No. 1 wanted target.

Targeting someone as prominent as Trump is in itself an exercise in political repression by communicating that what they do to him, they’ll freely do to his supporters, too. It’s lawlessness, repression, election interference, and tyranny. They all work in concert. It’s frightening that it seems there’s no Vladimir Putin-like act Democrats can’t do to shake their power or their supporters.

A key reason for the corruption of the U.S. justice system into a tool of political prosecution is the sheer volume of laws and regulations. The volume has been added by leftists working to increase the size and interference of government for more than a century. It’s now completely beyond control, even more so because Congress has failed for 70 years to control the administrative state that passes laws in their stead.

A Harvard University professor wrote about this reality in his book, “Three Felonies a Day,” as have multiple other legal scholars. In his 2014 book, “By the People,” social scientist Charles Murray gave multiple reasons “our encounters with today’s legal system as it actually functions are often indistinguishable from lawlessness.” Five are:

• The average person cannot afford to defend himself from an accusation.
• Criminal law has expanded beyond infractions everyone knows are wrong to a vast array of mostly process crimes. These process crimes can punish people for completely reasonable actions.
• Most civil law is now arbitrary and capricious, about following pointless regulations that don’t benefit anyone except government regulators: “Punishment for failure to observe an arbitrary and pointless regulation is indistinguishable from punishment for failing to obey the arbitrary and capricious demands of an absolute ruler.”
• It is impossible to even know what the laws are, and even if you could read and remember them all, it’s impossible to comply because many contradict themselves.
• Law is often subjective and discretionary, both of which are indistinguishable from lawlessness.

Murray didn’t add what is also apparent: that the process is the punishment. People paying attention who aren’t extremely wealthy know that clearing their names in court might not work, but it will certainly bankrupt them. It certainly will affect their happiness. So they self-censor and take other forms of reasonable precautions to avoid getting noticed by a government official who could ruin their lives — who now number in the thousands, if not millions.

The weaponization of the justice system is not an accident. It is the foreseeable cause of ending limited government. That has occurred by multiple means, but the proliferation of laws and allowing executive agencies to substitute for Congress in passing their own laws (as well as arbitrating disputes with them and enforcing them) is chief among them. Unlimited government is tyranny.

Don’t take my word for it. Take the words of the framer of our now mostly discarded Constitution: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

This is what tyranny looks like. We’re living under it now. Any Republican who wants to tell me about how great they are on judges is lucky to get only cynical laughter in response.

Axios Calls Open Border ‘More Fortified’ Than ‘Ever’

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist 

Axios dismissed the idea of an “open border” as a “myth” perpetuated by conservatives who apparently overlook the “reality” that “the southern border is more fortified than it’s ever been.”

“As the Biden administration grapples with the soaring number of migrants and asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border, conservative pundits and politicians have upped accusations that some Democrats support ‘open border’ policies,” Axios reported Tuesday. “By using the term “‘open border,’ conservatives — including Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who is seeking the role of House speaker — are suggesting that anyone can get into the U.S. without much hassle.”

If the border were truly closed, however, then the FBI might not have issued a weekend warning over the “heightened environment” for terrorism.

On Saturday, FBI Director Christopher Way blamed the conflict in Israel for “an increase in reported threats” at the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference.

“I’d encourage you to stay vigilant because as the first line of defense protecting our communities, you’re often the first to see the signs that someone may be mobilizing to violence,” Wray said.

While the FBI chief didn’t mention the weak entry points along the southern U.S.-Mexico border as openings for terrorism, federal data shows more than 150 illegal crossers were on the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB).

“Terrorists and criminal actors may exploit the elevated flow and increasingly complex security environment to enter the United States,” the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cautioned last week in the agency’s latest Homeland Threat Assessment.

On Monday, Fox News confirmed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that a pair of Iranians were caught by border patrol in September.

In other words, terrorists are finding it easier to enter the United States, along with the millions of migrants who’ve found their way across under the incumbent administration. Nearly 7 million have been “encountered” under President Joe Biden, with 3 million released into communities across the country. But the border isn’t “open?”

Fentanyl is coming too, with a 164 percent increase in CBP seizures within Biden’s first two years in office, according to the Wilson Center. Despite appearances to the contrary, the increase in seizures does not reflect a federal law enforcement apparatus doing its job, as the numbers illustrate a surge of illicit substances flowing over the border, with local police departments finding the drugs all over the country.

If the fentanyl seizures at the border indicated law enforcement has become more effective, Axios didn’t claim it. In fact, the online outlet failed to even mention the fentanyl crisis in Tuesday’s reporting. Axios reporter Russell Contreras merely compared today’s level of border enforcement to where it was throughout the 20th century.

“The United States hasn’t had an open border since the early 1920s, when it was relatively easy for migrants to cross from Mexico or simply buy a boat ticket from Europe,” Contreras wrote. “Before World War I, there were no American consulates to apply for a visa, and Mexican migrants and Mexican Americans went back and forth between both countries with ease.”

Before World War I, however, the entire population of Mexico was around 15 million. There weren’t 7 million migrants attempting to cross the border under each consecutive administration. The problem has become so severe today that earlier this month, President Biden capitulated to Republican demands for a border wall and resumed construction of the project in Texas.

European Commission Announces Triple Funding for Palestinian/Hamas Effort

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

EU President Ursula von der Leyen has pledged to provide the Palestinian/Hamas effort with $50 million in supplemental assistance to support the resistance effort against Israeli retaliation.

EU Announcement – “President Ursula von der Leyen spoke to the Secretary General of the UN António Guterres this afternoon, in the context of her on-going contacts with regional leaders.

Following this call, she said: “The Commission will immediately increase the current humanitarian aid envelope foreseen for Gaza by 50 million euros. This will bring the total to over 75 million euros. We will continue our close cooperation with the UN and its agencies to ensure that this aid reaches those in need in the Gaza strip. The Commission supports Israel’s right to defend itself against the Hamas terrorists, in full respect of international humanitarian law. We are working hard to ensure that innocent civilians in Gaza are provided support in this context.”

Commissioner Lenarčič said: “The Commission is doing everything in its power to provide humanitarian support to civilians in the Gaza strip. This tripling of EU humanitarian assistance will help ensure that civilians in Gaza can be provided with the basic necessities required. It is essential that safe and unrestricted access for humanitarian aid is ensured.”  (Read more)

Palestinian boys dressed in uniforms of Palestinian security forces and holding plastic toy guns take part during a rally marking “Nakba” in the West Bank city of Nablus May 15, 2011.