Wednesday, June 26, 2024

There Is No Debate That The Debate Will Be An Ambush


I’m not interested in the Presidential debate, and I’m probably not even going to watch it even though it’s kind of my job to have hot takes and to pundit all over such events. But why should I? The fix is already in because the regime media is broken and so is President Crusty. Now, my reluctance is not because I don’t like Donald Trump or because I dislike Joe Biden – I do like Donald Trump and I do dislike Joe Biden. It’s because I don’t think I will get anything out of it that I don’t already know. Trump is Trump, and Biden is a mendacious clown with delusions of competence. And as for this debate, to quote that weird salamander admiral from before Star Wars became all about lesbian space witches of color, “It’s a trap!”

I don’t want to waste valuable life watching Jake Tapper and Dana Bash run interference for that drooling old pervert. I don’t need proof that the regime media is in the bag for the Democrats, just like I don’t need proof that Joe Biden is a senile old moron. These are facts. It is written. So, I’ll probably find something better to do.

And “something better to do” includes pretty much everything. 

Everyone already knows Trump and knows Biden. There are no new opinions to be had. That’s why I don’t think the debates are going to have much effect on the election unless Joe Biden gets up on stage and soils himself – in fact, I don’t even think that will have much effect because the regime media will provide him a cleanup on aisle nine. Joe Biden is going to be so hopped up on goofballs that he will probably remain upright, if not coherent, for the entire thing. Just by not falling over and breaking his hip, he’ll be declared the winner. And it he does, they’ll call it a tie.

As for Trump, it’s going to be a series of Democrat-written questions that hopefully Trump will bat away before pivoting to things that we care about, like crime, American humiliation around the world, the economy, and the open border. It’s easy to anticipate the dumb queries they will pose. Why do you want to kill women by banning reproductive healthcare, by which they mean killing babies? Why do you hate migrants who just want a better life, where “a better life” too often means raping and killing Americans? Why do you want to give tax breaks to greedy billionaires, though the greedy billionaires are all Democrats these days? Why do you deny climate change, even though the deadlines for us being dead keep passing without us being dead? Why are you such a felon, you felonious felon of felonies, and we don’t mean the good kind like George Floyd? Finally, why do you hate Our Democracy so much, with “Our Democracy” meaning the unchallenged power wielded by our garbage ruling class?

Donald Trump’s game plan should be to let Joe Biden run his piehole and descend into incoherent babble. The best outcome is that normal Americans see Joe Biden as the rest of us do, as a senile, addled old loser. But when have you ever known Donald Trump to hang back and let somebody else trip over his own idiocy? He’ll bellow “Madness? This. Is. MAGA!” and kick Joe Gumby into the bottomless pit, damn the consequences. Donald Trump is a counterpuncher, which means he’s going to counterpunch, but the problem is that if people see him beating up a decrepit old husk of a former human like Joe Biden, some invertebrates may actually feel sorry for the old pervert. I wouldn’t. Crusty deserves every bad thing that happens to him. He’s a liar, a scumbag, a moron, and the only scummier family than the Biden that I can think of is Charlie Manson’s. But Americans are a softhearted people, and when they see Grandpa Badfinger being pummeled, they may feel sympathy for him. What they should be doing is cheering Trump on, but, unfortunately, Americans have gotten significantly wussier over time – yet another thing to despise the Democrats for.

The fact is that Donald Trump is walking into a kill zone. It’s an ambush. Trump wants to get Joe Biden onstage in the hopes that the moronic zombie exposes his decline to the American people, but the enemy doesn’t always cooperate with you. If you don’t think this guy will be a staggering, stuttering pharmacy of chemical enhancements, you just haven’t been paying attention. They’re going to do everything they can to get this brainless geek through this debate without making a complete fool of himself, and they’re going to have the help of both hosts. Their shameless succor to Biden will put Candy Crowley’s lifeline to Barack Obama to shame. 

CNN and its hosts are in the bag for Biden. They’re not going to hide it. They’re going to revel in it. And when you point out the video of this numbskull babbling, they’re going to call it a “cheap fake” or say it’s AI or give some other excuse. Remember, the lying is an integral part of the regime media’s modus operandi. By lying, when you know they’re lying and they know they’re lying and everybody knows they’re lying, they demonstrate their commie solidarity. They will eagerly sacrifice their dignity to prove they are part of Team Trotsky.

Unfair? Yeah, and? Remember, life has no referees. There’s no cosmic mommy out there who’s going to say, “Hey, the regime media is lying! Hey, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash are a bunch of Democrat functionaries toe-shrimping President Daddyshowers!” Look for more and more unrepentant laptopping – the regime media tactic of telling the world something that everybody knows is a lie in order to help the Democrats, just like they did with Hunter’s laptop. They knew it wasn’t Russian disinformation and didn’t care when they told you it was. They knew it was devastating to Biden, so they lied about it. And they knew there would be no consequences for them lying about it.

And there won’t be any consequences when they do it at the debate. What, are we going to think even less of the regime media? That’s not even possible. 

So, I’m not going to watch this charade play out. Maybe I’ll watch “Storage Wars.” I’ll get the debate highlights the next day on Twitter. Of course, they will declare the ones that favor Donald Trump to be misinformation. But I don’t care what they say. I’m not sure anybody cares what the reading media says. I’m not even sure anybody cares what the candidates say. I think we’re pretty close to November being baked in right now, so why waste my time handing CNN another pair of eyeballs?



at

X22, And we Know, and more- June 26

 



at

Democrats Have Been Complaining about Election Fraud for Years

If you bother to look back at numerous elections you will discover that claiming election fraud is as American as . . . apple pie.


How do the Democrats complain? Let us count the ways.

In January 2017, seven House Democrats (Jim McGovern, Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal, Raul Grijalva, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee, and Maxine Waters) formally objected to the certification of state elections.

In announcing their challenge, Barbara Lee claimed that factors such as “malfunctioning voter machines” and “incidents of intimidation and misinformation at the polls” were “clear evidence of widespread voter suppression.”

Jamie Raskin claimed that the 2016 election was “badly tainted by everything from cyber-sabotage by Vladimir Putin to deliberate voter suppression by Republicans in numerous swing states.” Ah, yes, that wily old Vladimir Putin—he’s a clever guy, he is.

No senators were persuaded by the House Democrats’ arguments, meaning that the election challenges did not move forward.

Democratic Congressman John Lewis (also a “civil rights activist”) did not attend Trump’s inauguration, saying that he did not “see this president-elect as a legitimate president.”

In January 2017, Senator Bernie Sanders dodged a question about whether Trump was a legitimate president, responding that Trump would “be inaugurated” but that he had “great concerns about the role that Russian hacking played in getting him elected.” Right. Those wily Russians again.

In January 2017, Jerry Nadler, former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Trump’s election was “illegitimate.” Said Nadler: “He was legally elected, but the Russian weighing-in on the election, the Russian attempt to hack the election and, frankly, the FBI’s weighing-in on the election, I think, makes his election illegitimate, puts an asterisk next to his name.” Да, правильно.

In January 2017, Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz dodged questions about Trump’s electoral legitimacy in a CNN interview: “What I believe is that there’s no question that the outcome of this election was affected by . . . Russian interference.” (You can’t make this stuff up!)

At a campaign rally in May 2019, Joe Biden (the same Joe Biden who is now the U.S. president) said he “absolutely agreed” with an audience member calling Trump an “illegitimate president.”

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly questioned Trump’s electoral legitimacy.

In September 2017, Clinton claimed she “would not” rule out questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election but that she “just [didn’t] think we have a mechanism” for challenging the results. Understandably, perhaps, she didn’t raise the Russian interference issue. Wonder why not.

In September 2019, Clinton said that Trump “knows he’s an illegitimate president” and that “he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories . . . were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like [sic] it did.”

In July 2020, Clinton claimed “the one thing that Trump is fearful of” is that Americans “will see how illegitimate his victory actually was.”

In October 2020, Clinton told The Atlantic that “there was a widespread understanding that [the 2016] election was not on the level. We still don’t know what really happened.”

In January 2005, 31 House Democrats voted to reject Ohio’s electoral votes after Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) filed a challenge to the state’s electors.

Democrats voting to reject Ohio’s electors claimed that the action was necessary to address “numerous, serious election irregularities” that led to “a significant disenfranchisement of voters.”

House Democrats voting yes on the motion included Barbara Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), now House Democratic Leader James Clyburn (D-SC), and now Senator Ed Markey (D-MA).

In 2006, DNC Chairman Howard Dean claimed that he was “not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided. . . . We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. That’s clear.”

Senators voicing support for the motion to challenge Ohio’s electors included Senator Dick Durbin (now Senate Majority whip) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

Durbin: “Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate. I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.”

Van Hollen: “I believe that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) have performed a very valuable public service in bringing this debate before the Congress.”

In 2004, Rep. Jerry Nadler repeatedly argued that voting machines and paper ballots were subject to fraud that needed investigation. In November 2004, he said: “We are requesting an investigation into all the allegations of irregularities with respect to the electronic and other voting machines. . . . Paper ballots are extremely susceptible to fraud.” He has got to be kidding!

And of course, there’s Stacy Abrams; she still maintains she won the election for governor of Georgia in 2018.

All these complaints by Democrats, election loss after election loss—where was Liz Cheney when we needed her?

Now it turns out Biden officials are already preparing to contest the upcoming election if Biden loses. But you can bet your bottom (badly inflated) dollar that they will beat up on Trump if he contests the election if he loses.

Another election was stolen? Pass the pie, please.



at

The Poor Legal Arguments of Jack Smith


On Friday, Judge Aileen Cannon, overseeing the Florida-based records prosecution of former president Donald Trump, heard a lawsuit regarding the legitimacy of the appointment of special prosecutor Jack Smith.  On Sunday, his office provided the response to those complaints.  On Monday, the court entertained the oral arguments regarding this issue.  Based upon his arguments, even a non-lawyer such as myself can see that the two cases (Florida and Washington, D.C.) are illegitimate.  Now we must await Judge Cannon’s opinion.

On Sunday evening, Mark Levin announced on Fox News that his Landmark Legal Foundation had filed a brief concerning the validity of Jack Smith’s appointment.  He laid out the legal arguments.  Further information demonstrates the weakness of Smith’s argument.  Levin noted that Ed Meese and Michael Mukasey provided briefs arguing against Smith’s appointment.  I will give the information as briefly as possible.

The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the president significant powers to affect the leadership of the federal government: “and [the president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” 

In this way, the power to create offices and the power to appoint those persons are separated, which was not the case under the British royal power in 1776.  The founders chose to allow separation of powers and a check on the power of the Executive through the Congress.

In his answer to the complaint, Jack Smith argued that he is an inferior officer.  He cites laws that provide for such appointments under the Justice Department.  He quotes Senator Bob Dole’s statement from 1992.  All of this is true, since he recognizes that he was not confirmed by the Senate.  Further, Smith argues that former A.G. Bill Barr had made similar appointments during his first stint as attorney general.

During his second stint as A.G., Barr appointed special prosecutors, but they were already U.S. attorneys sanctioned by the Senate.  Jack Smith never received Senate approval, so he must be an inferior officer.  The Supreme Court defined these positions in Buckley v. Valeo, holding that only those appointees “exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States” are “Officers of the United States,” and hence it is only those who exercise such “significant authority” who must be appointed by a mechanism set forth in the Appointments Clause.  The Court listed in Morrison v. Olson (1988) certain factors as hallmarks of “inferior Officer” status, such as removability by a higher Executive Branch official other than the president and limitations on the officer’s duties, jurisdiction, and tenure.  In Edmond v. United States (1997), the Court stated that “‘inferior Officers’ are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.”  Among those officers recognized as “inferior” are district court clerks, federal supervisors of elections, the Watergate special prosecutor, and an independent counsel appointed under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

The Justice Department has established regulatory guidelines for special prosecutors, which would be acceptable under the 1978 law.  In early June, Representative Thomas Massie questioned A.G. Merrick Garland about the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment after quoting former A.G. Ed Meese’s brief.  Garland had no answer for the issue.  Perhaps Garland understood that if he was overseeing the cases that that would mean the White House and he were directly involved, which would be election interference?  But they deny this and claim that Smith is independent.  That would make him a superior officer, requiring confirmation.

However, there is another problem with Smith’s argument.  The law that he cites in Cannon’s court was allowed to lapse in 1999.  There is no law authorizing the DOJ to appoint an inferior officer with such power.  So this is a violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

Sorry, but Smith’s legal argument is sophomoric.  This situation explains all the leftist articles against Judge Cannon, who clearly is acting as a real judge.



at

🎭 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. 


at

Woman Who Will Always Be Remembered for Losing to Donald Trump Has Advice for Joe Biden


Joe Cunningham reporting for RedState 

As we are in a presidential election cycle, and as Donald Trump is one of the candidates involved in the aforementioned cycle, it is naturally time for Hillary Clinton to brush off the cobwebs and say a bunch of words about taking on Donald Trump and saving the country from a man she lost to in 2016.

The former First Lady and Secretary of State is largely responsible for us becoming a country whose history books can say "President Donald Trump" in future editions. But, that doesn't mean she doesn't have advice for Joe Biden, who is taking on Trump for the second time this year. She is releasing a book soon, and she is also writing op-eds in the New York Times, giving advice to Joe Biden.

It bears repeating: Hillary Clinton, who lost to Donald Trump in 2016, has advice for Joe Biden, who is the only person to have beaten Donald Trump in an election.

"He starts with nonsense and then digresses into blather," she wrote in her op-ed for the Times. "Yet expectations for him are so low that if he doesn't literally light himself on fire on Thursday evening, some will say he was downright presidential."

"Biden is a wise and decent man who is fighting hard for working families," Clinton also wrote. "Yes, he's 81. That's just three years older than Mr. Trump."

Sure, Biden is only three years older than Trump, but the latter isn't showing signs of dementia and elder abuse. The current president has to be guided off stages and given notecards and clear cues. He needs pre-screened questions and Easter Bunny handlers.

Here are just some of his recent elderly moments.

How Will They Explain This One? Biden Has More Difficulty, This Time Climbing Into an SUV

Biden Announces His New Amnesty Plan, and His Brain Goes Haywire in the Process

Joe Biden's Lame Attempt to Mock Reporters Turns Into Another 'Is He Okay?' Moment

It's possible to go on forever with this, but you understand the point: Joe Biden is not well, and the Democrats are asking us not to believe our lying eyes when we point that out. It's obvious, and it's not edited video making him appear that way. It's everyone's undivided attention on the leader of the free world when these obvious mental lapses happen.

But Hillary Clinton, who has been the sorest of losers since 2016, is giving him advice and telling him to ignore Trump's outbursts. It would be funny if it weren't so sad watching the Democratic Party's elder stateswoman try to stay relevant.

And this is where 1) I am giving objective advice to Democrats and 2) know they won't listen to me because I'm not one of them. 

In all honesty, the Clinton who should be giving advice to Joe Biden is Bill. The former president is the best Democrat in recent history when it came to winning and keeping blue-collar voters. He knew how to connect with them, he knew how to address economic concerns, and he knew how to talk to regular people. Biden may have been able to do that once upon a time, but he hasn't been that Joe Biden in years.

Hillary Clinton's campaign ignored blue-collar voters and focused on young voters and major urban areas - demographics and areas they were already going to win. She ignored the voters in states that are relatively blue but need to be spoken to like equals, not looked down on.

So, my advice to Joe Biden (or, rather, his team) is to find the old team that helped Bill Clinton be successful and ignore the people Hillary surrounded herself with. Because she lost to Trump and really has nothing of value to offer.



at

Hungary Launches Foreign Influence Investigation – U.S. State Dept, CIA and EU Influence Institutions Immediately Complain


The elected government of Hungary is NOT permitted to block, slow, stall, impede or otherwise interfere in the operations of the U.S. State Dept and CIA to control the nation of Hungary.  The efforts of Hungary to maintain its sovereign status are NOT acceptable.  So sayeth the institutions that ultimately seek control over other nations.

Given the years of protestations and claims about Russia interfering in USA politics, if those expressed positions against the Hungarian government sound like massive hypocrisy from the United States, you would be correct. But hey, that’s how the USA operates now.

Hungary is investigating the subversive activity of foreign interest groups inside the sovereign nation.  The State Dept and CIA are furious.

BUDAPEST (Reuters) -Hungary’s Sovereignty Protection Office launched an investigation on Tuesday into the Hungarian branch of the anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International (TI) and an online investigative outlet that focuses on corruption.

Hungary’s parliament passed a law late last year that set up an authority, the Sovereignty Protection Office, to explore and monitor risks of political interference.

The law, which has been criticised by the European Union, the United States and several international organisations, bans foreign financing for parties or groups running for election and carries punishments of up to three years in prison.

[…] The law was criticised by the U.S. State Department, as well as by a panel of constitutional law experts from the Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog, which said it can have “a chilling effect” on free and democratic debate in the country.

The European Commission launched an infringement procedure over the law in February this year, citing its potential to undermine the union’s democratic values and fundamental rights. (read more)

Who knew?

The new global “democracy” is apparently defined as the ability of approved western nations to interfere in the election outcomes of other nations. If you do not permit the State Dept., CIA and USAID to control the political outcomes in your country, well, you are not really a democracy.

Nice country you have there Viktor, it’d be a shame if something happened to it!


at

Trump's Real Objective During His Debate With Biden Isn't Just About Defeating Biden


On Monday, I wrote that while former President Donald Trump will be facing off against President Joe Biden during the upcoming debate, Biden will hardly be his primary opponent. Biden will be competing against Biden up on that stage, hoping that whatever chemicals flowing through his veins and practice he's gotten will carry him through to the end. 

Trump, on the other hand, will be facing down two opponents. Biden and the media that is constantly protecting him. Biden won't be nearly as big of a threat to Trump as the media will, as such, Trump's primary opponent will be the moderators in front of him, not the empty suit beside him. 

As such, Trump should probably reconsider what a win for him onstage would look like. For sure, he needs to make Biden look like a fool, incompetent, and unfit, but Biden's record speaks for itself. All Trump has to do is point it out. Biden's cognitive erosion will likely do the rest of the job for Trump. 

As Rich Lowry said at National Review about Trump's strategy: 

Trump doesn’t need to tell voters that Joe Biden is old or that Hunter is a drug addict. He doesn’t need to insult or interrupt him. He needs to keep himself under control because the most important message he can send the public is about himself.

Trump’s persona is the biggest reason that he grabbed Republican politics by the throat and hasn’t let go since 2015. It’s also the reason he has been a precarious electoral bet — narrowly winning in 2016, narrowly losing in 2020, and narrowly leading today.

Trump should definitely let his personality shine and remember this isn't a rally stage. His funny insults and burns are only going to get him so far on this stage, and could even work against him. He should remember his first debate against Biden in the 2020 elections if he needs a reference. 

But again, Biden will likely take care of himself. Trump's true opponent is the media, and as such, a big part of his strategy should be defeating them. 

We know that this debate is going to be rigged in favor of Biden from the get-go. One of the moderators will be Jake Tapper, and CNN signalled that any talk of bias before this debate won't be tolerated. Recall that recently, Kasie Hunt shut down Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt for mentioning Tapper's habit of comparing Trump to a famous Austrian dictator. Even if CNN doesn't want people catching wise to the fact that this debate will have moderators so biased against Trump that they think he's just like Hitler, Tapper's abuse of Godwin's Law is out there for everyone to see. 

(Compilation of Jake Tapper Comparing Trump to Hitler)

In this case, a victory for Trump is pointing that bias out, and not just when it comes to Tapper. 

Trump should drag the media's war with him on stage when the opportunity presents itself. He should never let it come before his points against Biden, but swipes at the media agenda against him need to be discussed. This includes bringing up the many hoaxes against him, the many falsehoods and lies told about him during and after his presidency, and call out the guilty by name, both the corporate brand and the "journalist" that pushed the hoax or uttered the lie. 

The ultimate goal here is to discredit the media, and he'll definitely have the opportunity to do that. The media will spend a lot of time attempting to discredit him during the debate, and this will likely include the moderators in front of him. 

It also wouldn't hurt for Trump to make it personal for the viewers. He could point out how the media not only lied to the people to protect the Biden administration, but how it even would sometimes blame them for things such as the failing economy or accuse the people of modern social sins for speaking out against illegal immigration. 

This will likely be far more important as the media will still be around even if Biden is defeated, and it will continue being a nuisance to him and the American people long after this debate. 

Trump will need to find a solid balance between defeating Biden and the media at the same time. He won't know how much trouble Biden will actually be until the debate begins and Biden shows just how awake he is at that moment, so Trump will have to make that judgement on the fly. Regardless, a solid takedown of the media during the debate will be a part of how people will ultimately grade Trump's performance. 



at

Corporate Media Vilify Judge Aileen Cannon For Doing Her Constitutional Duty


Cannon has not violated her oath to ‘administer justice.’ On the contrary, she’s the only judge using the Constitution to combat lawfare.



Anonymous sources claimed to The New York Times last week that two federal judges allegedly urged Judge Aileen Cannon in the Southern District of Florida to pass the high-profile case concerning former President Donald Trump’s classified documents to a colleague.

The article, along with several other seemingly scathing attacks by the press on the Columbian-born American for “pro-Trump rulings,” conveniently made their rounds just a few weeks after a federal appeals court rejected Democrats’ “orchestrated” attempt to get Cannon to recuse herself from the case.

According to media like the Times, Cannon is unable to fairly oversee this particular case because Trump appointed her. Never mind that Democrat-appointed judges have escaped scrutiny for years despite routinely presiding over political cases.

The idea that Trump had the foresight to know when he appointed Cannon that he would spend days of precious campaign time in her court over a manufactured classified document scandal that his political opponent managed to escape is not just ridiculous. It’s part of a concerted effort by corporate media to discredit Cannon and her commitment to supervising the Trump case with constitutional caution.

Every decision Cannon has made in the classified document case has stayed within the confines of her authority. In fact, many of the judge’s decrees have been to curb the atrocious infringement of liberty and due process committed by President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice and Special Counsel Jack Smith.

A Deliberate Double Standard

The Times accused Cannon of showing “unusual favor to Mr. Trump by intervening in a way that helped him in the criminal investigation that led to his indictment.” The alleged intervention Cannon committed was indefinitely postponing the Trump trial after the DOJ admitted to tampering with evidence during the FBI’s August 2022 raid on Mar-a-Lago.

Demanding an independent review of the documents that Smith claimed Trump harbored illegally is no crime or conflict. Rather, giving the defendant due process, unsealing documents key to understanding the DOJ’s targeting of Trump, and allowing Trump’s lawyers to contest Smith’s appointment as unconstitutional were all routine decisions that, if made in any other case, would not raise eyebrows.

The Times, a fierce ally of the Biden regime, however, took issue with these basic actions because Cannon’s decisions have derailed the administration’s attempt to get Trump as many convictions and as much jail time as possible before voting for the 2024 presidential election begins.

When Judge Arthur Engoron smirked at Trump in his New York courtroom at the start of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ weak case against the Republican president, he was cheered by the corrupt press. When Cannon shut down a DOJ prosecutor who later admitted that he was acting unprofessionally, however, she was scrutinized.

Cannon, like every other U.S. judge, took an oath to “administer justice without respect to persons” and “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me … under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Her position as presiding jurist in one of the many cases against Trump has not violated that oath. On the contrary, Cannon has gone to great lengths to uphold the due process rights Trump and his defense team were not afforded by courts run by partisan judges.

Cannon isn’t conspiring with the Trump campaign to score him small courtroom victories, as the corrupt press would lead you to believe. She’s just doing her job to uphold the Constitution, something the judges responsible for overseeing other lawfare cases would benefit from trying.



at

Russia Warns America to Expect Retaliation After Kyiv's Attack on Crimea With US-Supplied Missile

Leah Barkoukis reporting for Townhall 

Russia vowed to retaliate against the United States over a Ukrainian strike on Sunday that killed at least four people, including two children, and injured 151 others.

The attack on Sevastopol used U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles and Russian officials said "all flight data was entered by US military crews based on US reconnaissance satellite inputs. A Global Hawk US reconnaissance drone was on duty off Crimea."

Russia's Foreign Ministry summoned U.S. Ambassador Lynne Tracy after the incident and claimed Washington was "waging a hybrid war against Russia and has actually become a party to the conflict." The Kremlin vowed that “retaliatory measures will definitely follow.” 

According to Reuters, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said Washington green-lit Ukraine’s use of U.S. weapons to defend its territory, including in Crimea.  

Pentagon spokesperson Major Charlie Dietz emphasized, however, that "Ukraine makes its own targeting decisions and conducts its own military operations."

The ATACMS missile was reportedly targeting a missile launcher but exploded when Russia intercepted it, sending shrapnel raining down on beachgoers. 

After the incident, Russia's Defense Ministry said "responsibility for the deliberate missile attack on civilians in Sevastopol lies primarily with Washington, which supplied these weapons to Ukraine, as well as the Kyiv regime, from whose territory this attack was launched.”


at