Post-Trump Verdict, Will the American Right Finally Wake Up?

posted by Josh Hammer at Townhall 

Like many others in the punditry space, I am a lawyer by background. I practiced law at a major global law firm. I clerked for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. I have published multiple pieces of formal legal scholarship on constitutional issues. I regularly lecture at law schools and present to professional lawyer groups across the country on assorted legal topics. I host two shows, one of which is explicitly legal-based -- and with a focus, above all, on the unprecedented lawfare tactics sullying the 2024 presidential race.

In other words, I know a thing or two about the law. And I have been doing my part to sound the alarm on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's sham prosecution and eventual show trial of former President Donald Trump ever since the George Soros-backed lawman first dropped his ludicrous 34-count indictment over a year ago. There are far too many technical deficiencies in Bragg's "case," to say nothing of the grotesque manner in which the presiding judge comported himself at trial, to recapitulate here.

But for present purposes, the key point is this: None of those details matter. (SET ITAL) None of them. (END ITAL)

The key points following Thursday's first-ever criminal "conviction" of a former U.S. president, rather, are three-fold.

First, the Democrats' long march to get the nefarious Orange Man by any means necessary, beginning with the 2016 election cycle, has finally worked. There was the Russia collusion hoax -- birthed by the failed Hillary Clinton campaign and laundered through Fusion GPS and the tiny law firm Perkins Coie LLP. There was the illegitimate spying on Trump campaign hands like Carter Page. There were the Democrats' street hooligans, from the Women's March of 2017 through the Antifa-Black Lives Matter riots of 2020. There was the constant deep state undermining of the presidential agenda. There were two bogus impeachments -- for an entirely inconsequential phone call with the Ukrainian president, and for the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol jamboree that transpired mere days before Trump was set to leave town anyway. Most recently, there was the Aug. 2022 predawn FBI raid at Mar-a-Lago, and all the multistate lawfare that has followed.

And now, here we are.

Second, American patriots of all political stripes must come to terms with the current fallen state of the nation. The prosecution and incarceration of political opponents on trumped-up (no pun intended) charges is third-world, tinpot dictatorship, banana republic-type stuff -- pure and simple. Americans sometimes read about foreign nations whose partisans succumb to their basest instincts, in terms of attempting to jail political opponents. Indeed, it almost has the whiff of a medieval setting -- a king deposes his archrival and then condemns the vanquished foe to rot in the Tower of London. The idea that jailing one's top political rival -- and in an election year, no less -- could ever happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave would have struck many of us in the not-so-distant past as too ludicrous an idea to even contemplate. But as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), no legal slouch himself, tweeted after the verdict, "If you thought it couldn't happen in America, you were wrong."

Once again, then, here we are.

Third, it has never been more incumbent upon the Right to (SET ITAL) finally (END ITAL) wake up and realize what is going on right now in this once-great nation. Many conservatives and Republicans like to wax nostalgic about blindfolded Lady Justice -- about neutral enforcement of the law, and about general norms of liberal neutrality. Will those on the Right finally wake up and realize where, exactly, our attempt to seize an unsustainable faux-moral high ground has gotten us? The imperative of this late hour of the American republic, in order to even attempt to rebalance our wildly off-balance pendulum, is to respond to the Left as it has acted toward us: by wielding political and prosecutorial power to reward friends and punish enemies -- to reward our side's forces of civilizational sanity and punish their side's forces of civilizational arson -- within the broad confines of the rule of law.

If we want to get back to "neutrality," at this perilous point, it's going to first take bloodying up some noses. That is unfortunate for those Americans who actually do value and cherish neutral enforcement of the rule of law. But yet again, here we are.

Above all, it is imperative that the Right not bat an eyelash. Do not be intimidated by this blatant show of crass thuggery masquerading as a legal proceeding. It's now full steam ahead through November. We must make these miscreants pay for what they have done.

X22, And we Know, and more- May 31

 

Alvin Bragg’s Triumph Could Backfire at the Supreme Court and Make Rockier Jack Smith’s Path to a Trump Conviction

 The district attorney’s convictions could focus the minds of judges and justices on the precedent of presidential prosecution.

President Trump’s conviction on all 34 counts in his hush money case — a victory for District Attorney Alvin Bragg  — could yet boomerang on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s own efforts to convict the 45th president on an additional 44 charges handed up in federal courts in the districts of Florida and Columbia.

While the first guilty verdict brought in against an American president could put the wind in Mr. Smith’s sails after a season of litigation stagnation, it holds some potential dangers for the prosecutor as well. The conviction could focus the minds of judges and justices on the precedent of presidential prosecution. 

The verdict at New York County comes as the United States Supreme Court is weighing Trump’s claim that presidents are entitled, in perpetuity, to “absolute” immunity for official acts they undertook while in office. The special counsel argues that there is no such immunity, and that criminal behavior — like, say, conspiring to overturn the result of an election — is always prosecutable.

The hush money verdict is not yet directly threatened by the immunity question. Trump appears to have conceded that the acts involved were private. Judge Juan Merchan ruled that his attorneys did not raise the issue in a timely fashion and that many of the facts of the case concerned running for office, rather than holding it.

A federal judge, Alvin Hellerstein, has ruled that, in respect of the payments to an adult film star, Stormy Daniels, the “evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the President — a cover-up of an embarrassing event. Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts.”

Still, the justices could find that the logic of Trump’s argument for immunity gains new force in light of his conviction. The 45th president’s brief to the high court warned that liability to prosecution could condemn a president to “years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents. The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel.” 

Mr. Smith would respond that the threat of criminal prosecution for official acts is not a credible threat to what Justice Antonin Scalia called the “boldness of the president,” because it will happen only rarely. At oral arguments before the Supreme Court, though, one of the liberal lions, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, acknowledged a “very legitimate concern about prosecutorial abuse.” Will Mr. Bragg’s boast diminish or deepen that concern?

Trump’s attorney at those oral arguments, John Sauer, is warning  the court that if Mr. Smith has his way, “every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals.” A state conviction by an elected prosecutor could make that prediction more credible to the justices who will determine how widely to chart the circumference of presidential protection. 

There are limits, though, to what the Nine could do for Trump.  Justice Neil Gorsuch’s argument that a cramped view of immunity would create an incentive for “presidents to try to pardon themselves” is a hypothetical that would only cover what the Constitution calls “Offenses against the United States,” meaning federal crimes, not state ones.

Could the Supreme Court itself hear an appeal of Mr. Bragg’s conviction? The case would have to make its way through New York’s appellate system — the tenets of federalism mandate that, in all but the rarest of circumstances, federal courts will only intervene in state prosecutions as a last result. Trump would also have to argue that there is a federal issue at stake that warrants federal judicial consideration. 

Trump, though, could be helped by the unusual — almost unprecedented — nature of Mr. Bragg’s case, in two ways. First, the district attorney’s use of federal election law — violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act — as a possible predicate for securing a state crime conviction. While the jury was not required to find Trump guilty on that head, it could emerge as a hook on which to hang an appeal. 

Trump could also argue that the prosecution as a whole violated his federal rights. The wide berth for a conviction afforded by the jury instructions, say, could be spun up into an argument that appeals to the constitutional requirements in respect of due process and impartiality of the jury. 

The 45th president could also contend that the construction of the charges against him are so bespoke and unprecedented as to amount to a selective prosecution, in the sense that Lavrentiy Beria was using when he said, “Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime.”

https://www.nysun.com/article/alvin-braggs-triumph-could-backfire-at-the-supreme-court-and-make-rockier-jack-smiths-path-to-a-trump-conviction

A.R. HOFFMAN

Mr. Hoffman is an associate editor of the Sun, where he covers politics and culture. He holds a PhD from Harvard and a law degree from Stanford.

 

Our Revolutionary Times ~ VDH

The results of all these revolutions will shake up the U.S. for decades to come.

by Victor Davis Hanson for American Greatness

Sometimes unexpected but dramatic events tear off the thin veneer of respectability and convention. What follows is the exposure and repudiation of long-existing but previously covered-up pathologies.

Events like the destruction of the southern border over the last three years, the October 7 massacre and ensuing Gaza war, the campus protests, the COVID-19 epidemic and lockdown, and the systematic efforts to weaponize our bureaucracies and courts have all led to radical reappraisals of American culture and civilization.

Since the 1960s, universities have always been hotbeds of left-wing protests, sometimes violently so.

But the post-October 7 campus eruptions marked a watershed difference.

Masked left-wing protestors were unashamedly and virulently anti-Semitic. Students on elite campuses especially showed contempt for both middle-class police officers tasked with preventing their violence and vandalism and the maintenance workers who had to clean up their garbage.

Mobs took over buildings, assaulted Jewish students, called for the destruction of Israel, and defaced American monuments and commentaries.

When pressed by journalists to explain their protests, most students knew nothing of the politics or geography of Palestine, for which they were protesting.

The public concluded that the more elite the campus, the more ignorant, arrogant, and hateful the students seemed.

The Biden administration destroyed the southern border. Ten million illegal aliens swarmed into the U.S. without audit. Almost daily, news accounts detail violent acts committed by illegal aliens or their surreal demands for more free lodging and support.

Simultaneously, thousands of Middle Eastern students, invited by universities on student visas, block traffic, occupy bridges, disrupt graduations, and generally show contempt for the laws of their American hosts.

The net result is that Americans are reappraising their entire attitude toward immigration. Expect the border to be closed soon and immigration to become mostly meritocratic, smaller, and legal, with zero tolerance for immigrants and resident visitors who break the laws of their hosts.

Americans are also reappraising their attitudes toward time-honored bureaucracies, the courts, and government agencies.

The public still cannot digest the truth that the once respected FBI partnered with social media to suppress news stories, to surveil parents at school board meetings, and to conduct performance art swat raids on the homes of supposed political opponents.

After the attempts of the Department of Justice to go easy on the miscreant Hunter Biden but to hound ex-president Donald Trump for supposedly removing files illegally in the same fashion as current President Biden, the public lost confidence not just in Attorney General Merrick Garland but in American jurisprudence itself.

The shenanigans of prosecutors like Fani Willis, Letitia James, and Alvin Bragg, along with overtly biased judges like Juan Merchant and Arthur Engoron, only reinforced the reality that the American legal system has descended into third-world-like tit-for-tat vendettas.

The same politicization has nearly discredited the Pentagon. Its investigations of “white” rage and white supremacy found no such organized cabals in the ranks. But these unicorn hunts likely helped cause a 45,000-recruitment shortfall among precisely the demographic that died at twice their numbers in the general population in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Add in the humiliating flight from Kabul, the abandonment of $50 billion in weapons to the Taliban terrorists, the recent embarrassment of the failed Gaza pier, and the litany of political invective from retired generals and admirals. The result is that the armed forces have an enormous task to restore public faith. They will have to return to meritocracy and emphasize battle efficacy, enforce the uniform code of military justice, and start either winning wars or avoiding those that cannot be won.

Finally, we are witnessing a radical inversion in our two political parties. The old populist Democratic Party that championed lunch-bucket workers has turned into a shrill union of the very rich and subsidized poor. Its support of open borders, illegal immigration, the war on fossil fuels, transgenderism, critical legal and race theories, and the woke agenda are causing the party to lose support.

The Republican Party is likewise rebranding itself from a once-stereotyped brand of aristocratic and corporate grandees to one anchored in the middle class.

Even more radically, the new populist Republicans are beginning to appeal to voters on shared class and cultural concerns rather than on racial and tribal interests.

The results of all these revolutions will shake up the U.S. for decades to come.

Soon we may see a Georgia Tech or Purdue degree as far better proof of an educated and civic-minded citizen than a Harvard or Stanford brand.

We will likely jettison the failed salad bowl approach to immigration and return to the melting pot as immigration becomes exclusively legal, meritocratic, and manageable.

To avoid further loss of public confidence, institutions like the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the DOJ will have to re-earn rather than just assume the public’s confidence.

And we may soon accept the reality that Democrats reflect the values of Silicon Valley plutocrats, university presidents, and blue-city mayors, while Republicans become the home of an ecumenical black, Hispanic, Asian, and white middle class.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

The Powerhouse Meeting Between Musk, Peltz, and Trump - and the Effort Against Biden

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

There's some fascinating news about an alliance between billionaires Elon Musk and Nelson Peltz and former President Donald Trump. 

We reported on Musk's meeting with Trump in March. Now, there are more details about the meeting, which was reportedly at Peltz's mansion. The men also had their sons at the meeting: Barron, Diesel, and Musk's son X, who is a toddler. There were also allegedly other wealthy and powerful people at the meeting. 

At the meeting, the billionaires told Trump about a "massive data-driven project to ensure votes are fairly counted" that they were working on — a topic of great concern for Trump. 

The billionaires also told Trump of a plan to reach out to powerful networks to persuade influential people not to support Joe Biden, according to the report. Musk and others who share his views have been organizing meetings with powerful business leaders to encourage them not to support Biden. 

Musk has become a big critic of Biden and woke ideology in general. He's also found himself on the wrong end of Biden administration investigations once he became a critic and acquired the X social media platform. The left wasn't happy to have any social media platform slip out of their control, much less one with so much informational power as Twitter, now X. 

Musk hasn't endorsed Trump yet, but he has been talking with him regularly since their meeting in March on topics including illegal immigration, high tech, science, and the Space Force. 

Trump reportedly is considering a loose advisory role for Musk on the border and the economy "similar to that of former Marvel chairman Ike Perlmutter," who helped influence policies with the Department of Veterans Affairs. It's not formal, and it hasn't been decided yet. 

Meanwhile, Peltz, who founded Trian Partners, has already endorsed Trump because of immigration issues and concerns about Joe Biden's "mental condition." So it sounds like he's seeing what most have seen with Biden, that he's just not competent. 

Musk is going to continue to hold more salon-like gatherings against Biden.

In April, Musk co-hosted a secret dinner of around a dozen business leaders in Los Angeles. The guests included Peltz; venture capitalist Peter Thiel; former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin; and media mogul Rupert Murdoch, chairman emeritus of News Corp, which owns The Wall Street Journal, according to people familiar with the matter. The gathering was earlier reported by the news outlet Puck.

The group convened at entrepreneur and investor David Sacks’s 11,000-square-foot modern farmhouse atop the Hollywood Hills. Musk and Sacks worked together years ago on PayPal.

It's good that you finally have some people with money and position weighing in to fight the madness, although I sort of wish this report hadn't broken in a way. Now, the Biden team will likely focus even more on Musk and Peltz. But that shows you how far we've fallen when we have to worry about people being pursued because they politically oppose those in power.

But it sounds like they're doing what needs to be done — for people to stand up and say, "Enough already." Musk has not been shy about standing up for free speech, calling out Joe Biden's failures on illegal immigration and the dangers of the "woke mind virus." So it's no wonder that he's coming out and rallying support against Biden. But it takes courage to do it when they can train the power of the government on you.

Don’t Mistake Democrats’ War On America’s Heritage As Just A Clash Over A Pine Tree Flag

The controversy surrounding historical symbols like the ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flag reflects a deeper conflict over the very soul of the nation.

posted by Adam Johnston at The Federalist

One effective way to sever a people’s ties to their country’s past is to redefine and replace their nation’s history and symbols.

The latest target of leftist iconoclasts is a Revolutionary War-era flag emblazoned with an unassuming pine tree and the words “An Appeal to Heaven,” which was seen flying outside Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s New Jersey vacation home.

Predictably, these four words have caused left-wing media outlets, such as Slate, to panic as any appeal to God by government officials instantly sends leftists into hysterics about the rising threat of “Christian nationalism.” 

According to Slate writer Molly Olmstead, the Pine Tree Flag has been divorced from its historical roots and now serves “as a symbol of the spiritual fight to push Christianity deeper into society and especially into politics.”

“The idea that the symbol is pulled from U.S. history could grant the flag a veneer of democratic legitimacy,” Olmstead continues, “but no one should confuse it for a contemporary democratic symbol. It’s a resurrected emblem, with a uniquely theocratic twist.”

In reality, Democrats are using the religious associations of the “Appeal to Heaven” flag as a flimsy pretext to further erode American history and silence dissent from conservatives — as other flags rooted in the American Revolution are now viewed as “symbols of the far-right.” 

Conveniently for Democrats, due to the presence of historical flags like the Pine Tree Flag at the Jan. 6 demonstrations, anyone who pays tribute to America’s historical legacy can now be painted as a potential “insurrectionist.”

Of course, social justice symbols, such as the “pride” and BLM flags, which cultivate their own religious devotion, receive no such concern or pushback from the nation’s left-wing chattering class. These symbols not only are elevated to positions of prominence at the White House but receive special legal protections. For example, people have been charged with felonies for intentionally doing burnouts on painted LGBT “pride” crosswalks.

Attacks on Symbols of American Heritage Are Not New

In 2019, Nike planned to release a sneaker featuring the Betsy Ross flag, an early American flag with 13 stars in a circle, to commemorate the Fourth of July. However, Colin Kaepernick, a former NFL quarterback and Nike spokesman, lambasted the company about the flag’s symbolism, arguing that the historic flag should not be celebrated as it was a symbol of slavery and had also been co-opted by white nationalist groups.

Sadly, Nike capitulated to Kaepernick’s demands and pulled the sneaker.

But not even the contemporary American flag is safe from attack. Once honored and sworn allegiance to, Old Glory is routinely deemed a “symbol of hatred” and is increasingly viewed as a banner of oppression by a growing number of young Americans.

Besides the targeting of flags, additional examples of cultural replacement include the desecration and removal of historical statues, the attempt to reinterpret our nation’s birth from 1776 to 1619, the subversion of national holidays such as Thanksgiving for “Indigenous Peoples Day,” or even a new federal law commemorating Juneteenth as a “Second Independence Day,” which coincides with the elevation of a separate “black national anthem.”

Taken in totality, asserting that America’s heritage is under assault would be a colossal understatement.

Wokeness as Religion

Opposition to the “Appeal to Heaven” flag isn’t about the left advocating for a religiously neutral America. Instead, their pushback is designed to undermine any competing moral system, particularly Christianity, to reshape America according to their preferred totalitarian ideology of identity politics and Cultural Marxism.  

Similar to the ideology behind communism, wokeness opposes religion (though mainly just Christianity) while effectively being a religion itself. Unfortunately for us, while the United States was able to defeat the ideological Iron Curtain abroad, it has fallen under the rainbow shroud at home.

Let’s not forget, it was only a few months ago that Transgender Day of Visibility and Easter Sunday occurred on the same day. And while leftists point out that their hallowed day of trans-visibility just so happened to coincide with Christianity’s most sacred day this year, official State Department proclamations and rainbow-illuminated government landmarks across the country beginning in June will demonstrate just how far the country — and yes, those in positions of power in our government — have moved away from publicly worshiping God in favor of their own religion.

The controversy surrounding historical symbols such as the “Appeal to Heaven” flag reflects a deeper conflict over the very soul of the nation, pitting a leftist vision that seeks to rewrite American history against a conservative desire to preserve, celebrate, and build upon America’s heritage. Because America’s past remains politically up for grabs, the battle over its symbols will ultimately play a defining role in shaping its future. This is not merely a cultural skirmish but rather a war that must be won.

United States and China: Rivals in an Increasingly Medieval World

Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

It's no secret that relations between the United States and China have been tense in recent years, nor that they are growing more so. There are several reasons for this, not least of which is the rise of what a recent Rand Corporation study is calling "neomedievalism."

They list the key findings of their study as follows:

• Politically, the centralized nation-state is in steep decline, spurring severe political crises in many countries.
• Economically, growth has slowed and become imbalanced, leading to the return of entrenched inequalities and expansion of illicit economies.
• Nonstate threats, including pandemics, banditry, and ecological and natural disasters, could outpace rival militaries as security concerns.
• Preindustrial aspects of warfare have reemerged, including the prevalence of siege warfare, irregular and protracted conflict, the privatization of warfare, and the prominence of intrastate conflict.

While I could take these findings apart and spend hours commenting on each, it's important to take a close look at what this means to the United States' primary geopolitical adversary today: China.

Commenting on this Rand Corporation study, "The Hill" opinion columnist Andy Langenkamp had this to say:

In China, inequality is also rising and economic growth is slowing. Leaders increasingly rely on repression; China’s internal security budget has exceeded its defense budget for more than a decade.

Because of this state of affairs, China and the U.S. do not seem to be in a position to engage in a full battle with each other any time soon. The weaknesses of the two states and the internal and international challenges they face make it too risky to enter into a direct conflict. Also, rulers cannot assume that citizens will rally behind a war effort that requires real and sustained sacrifices.

The result is likely to be a protracted, low-intensity conflict, rather than an all-out war. This is not to say that we will not see an intense escalation. For example, a Chinese blockade of Taiwan is not out of the realm of realistic scenarios. In all likelihood, however, the Sino-American battle will be fought in the grey areas of cyberspace and economic issues.

While I'm inclined to agree with the idea of a full-scale battle between the US and China exploding, the idea of a prolonged, small-scale conflict, a second Cold War, is much more likely. China is beset by problems; their economy is weakening, their population is about to fall off a demographic cliff, and they are facing significant domestic unrest. But the United States has troubles of its own, not least of which is a befuddled president and an increasingly incompetent federal bureaucracy — not to mention the degrading of our military.

America is still a major player; we are also protected by two great oceans, which gives us a significant advantage in any military actions, although that advantage has shrunk considerably since 1941. But China still has strengths as well, being a major exporter and creditor to the United States and the other Western nations.

Medieval states are characterized by weak central governments, lack of unity among the populations, unbalanced economies, and recurrent warfare and raiding by military and quasi-military structures that are often little more than bandits. Taking a quick look around the globe right now, it sure looks like there are a lot of these things already happening.

The Rand Corporation report describes what the world is entering into now as neomedievalism — but it may be more apt to call it a return to feudalism. It's enough to make one wonder if a new Dark Age is on the horizon.

Rolling Stone’s Hit Piece On Amy Coney Barrett Is Even Dumber Than You Think

Rolling Stone’s dishonest smear of Justice Barrett is the latest in Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize SCOTUS.

Shawn Fleetwood reporting for The Federalist

Just when you think the media’s smear campaign against conservative Supreme Court justices can’t get any more despicable, they find a way to prove you wrong.

On Wednesday, Rolling Stone magazine’s Andrew Perez published a hit piece against Justice Amy Coney Barrett that amounts to nothing more than a dud for Democrats’ war on SCOTUS. The “scandal,” according to the outlet, is that Barrett’s husband is representing Fox Corporation — Fox News’ parent company — in an ongoing defamation case involving one of its local stations.

“The defamation case was filed by Lavell Redmond, an Illinois man who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault as a minor and served 24 years in prison,” the report reads. “Redmond was hired as a code enforcement officer by the mayor of Dolton in 2021, the original complaint says. He is suing Fox over a series of reports that scandalized his hiring — the first of which claimed he had been hired for ‘a job in which he goes into Dolton homes and businesses to inspect them.’”

If you’re wondering what the story’s damning bombshell is, you’re not alone. Not even Perez could identify an ethics violation or act of illegality committed by Barrett or her husband arising from the case. Not only is the matter not pending before SCOTUS, but the high court isn’t even presiding over a case in which Fox Corp. is a party.

The revelation is so unnewsworthy that Perez was left to describe obvious truths, such as how Fox News “regularly covers matters at the Supreme Court and will surely continue to do so as the high court nears the end of its term.” He also ominously warned readers about SCOTUS’s plans to issue rulings on several “controversial topics” this year, including those related to “abortion, guns, public corruption, and whether Donald Trump is entitled to immunity for life for acts he committed as president.”

Because as we all know, the Supreme Court issuing decisions on matters of public importance has never occurred before in American history.

As pathetic as it is, Rolling Stone’s smear against Barrett is not an anomaly. Rather, it’s the latest in a string of pseudo-events manufactured by Democrats and their media allies to delegitimize the Supreme Court. Perez gave away the game plan when he cited “complaints” from anonymous “ethics experts” who are allegedly concerned that “[j]ustices are not required to disclose their spouses’ clients,” and that because of this, “the public has no way to track who is paying money directly to their families.”

Of course, these so-called “experts” are almost assuredly Democrats and media apparatchiks who have spent the past several years attempting to undermine the Supreme Court.

From Justices Clarence Thomas to Neil Gorsuch, the wave of dishonest Democrat hit pieces designed to cast a cloud of impropriety over the court’s Republican-nominated members has been nonstop. The latest batch has come from The New York Times, which invented a controversy out of thin air by claiming flags flown by Justice Samuel Alito’s wife at their East Coast residence are tied to the “Stop the Steal” crowd and Jan. 6, 2021, demonstrations at the U.S. Capitol.

Despite there being zero evidence to support such an assertion or claims of wrongdoing by Alito, Democrats have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off demanding the Republican appointee recuse himself from cases related to their 2024 campaign strategy of weaponizing the justice system against Donald Trump and his supporters. Radical leftists such as Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., have adopted the phony stories to push baseless legal theories, such as the theory that Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department can force Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves from J6-related cases before the court.

[I Researched Judicial Ethics Rules For Years. Here’s Why The Alito Recusal Calls Are Ridiculous]

At the end of the day, Democrats’ motivation for undermining the Supreme Court is rooted in one thing: power.

The Supreme Court is the only major institution left in America that the Democrat Party doesn’t control. And if the left can’t control something, it will do its darndest to vilify and destroy it at all costs.