Hunter Biden is convicted, but the GOP is still big mad

You might think that Republicans would be thrilled that there’s now a convicted felon in the Biden family, but it’s still not enough for them. From wanting to take down the rest of the “Biden crime family” to calling Hunter’s conviction a Justice Department ploy to make it look like there’s not a “two-tiered system of justice,” the GOP is still angry and thirsting for revenge for Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 felonies.

Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, who can’t stop hilariously failing to impeach President Joe Biden, kicks it off with a tweet:

🚨STATEMENT🚨 Hunter Biden’s sweetheart plea deal was smoked out after scrutiny by a federal judge. Today’s verdict is a step toward accountability but until the Department of Justice investigates everyone involved in the Bidens’ corrupt influence peddling schemes that generated…

— Rep. James Comer (@RepJamesComer) June 11, 2024

Comer’s commentary reflects the sentiments of the Trump campaign

“Crooked Joe Biden’s reign over the Biden Family Criminal Empire is all coming to an end on November 5th, and never again will a Biden sell government access for personal profit. As for Hunter, we wish him well in his recovery and legal affairs,” a Trump campaign spokesperson said in a statement

But it wasn’t long until the campaign retracted its statement and reissued it without the well wishes for Hunter.

The “Biden crime family” and demands for prosecutions are a major theme among the GOP. 

“Now, it’s time to bring Hunter and the Biden Crime Family to justice for the allegations of influence peddling,” Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina tweeted.

“Hunter Biden’s firearm conviction is simply a smokescreen,” says Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana. “What I'm concerned about is how Joe, Hunter, and James Biden have been enriching themselves by trading away America's interests to our enemies.”

On the other hand, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri is accusing the DOJ for not prosecuting Hunter hard enough. 

“Never forget DOJ tried to avoid this trial & verdict by giving Hunter a sweetheart plea deal. Until the judge exposed them,” he tweeted.

Then there’s the conspiracy theorists, like Stephen Miller, who accused the DOJ of “running election interference for Joe Biden.”

“That’s why DOJ did NOT charge Hunter with being an unregistered foreign agent (FARA) or any crime connected with foreign corruption. Why? Because all the evidence would lead back to JOE,” he tweeted.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, added to that, tweeting: “And yet Dems will now point to Hunter’s conviction as evidence that ‘there’s no lawfare.’” 

But Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia takes the cake for political paranoia: 

Hunter Biden’s guilty verdict is nothing more than the Left’s attempt to create the illusion of equal justice. Don’t fall for it.

— Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) June 11, 2024

There’s no small amount of cognitive dissonance about the rule of law in this crowd. Like Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri, who intoned that “today’s verdict is a step towards ensuring equal application of the law, regardless of one's last name.”

Except, of course, for the equal application of the law to someone named Trump. 

“The fix was in for this fake ‘trial’ - the George Soros-backed DA and a leftist judge worked to tilt the scales of justice against President Trump,” Smith tweeted

Then there’s the pathetic toadying for Trump from Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good. 

“Hunter Biden is convicted of an actual crime. Donald Trump was railroaded by a political prosecutor and a biased judge,” Good tweeted

Trump has endorsed Good’s primary opponent. 

Yet no one in the GOP is complaining about a "rigged jury" or a “corrupt judge” in Hunter’s conviction. And neither are the Democrats.

“I've not heard a single Democrat anywhere in the country cry fraud, cry, fixed, cry, rigged, cry, kangaroo court or any of the many epithets that our colleagues have mobilized against the U.S. Department of Justice and our federal court system,” Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said

Similarly, Biden has responded to the conviction with a dignified and loving statement in support of his son. 

"Jill and I love our son, and we are so proud of the man he is today,” Biden said. “So many families who have had loved ones battle addiction understand the feeling of pride seeing someone you love come out the other side and be so strong and resilient in recovery.”

As for the verdict? 

“I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal,” Biden said.

Donald Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records on May 30. What are potential voters saying about this historic news? And what is the Biden-Harris campaign doing now that the “teflon Don" is no more?

Campaign Action

11 times Donald Trump escaped justice—until now

Donald Trump is an enigma inside a riddle wrapped in 34 felony convictions, so it’s difficult to work out exactly where he goes from here. Conventional wisdom tells us the presidential campaign of a traitorous Putin sympathizer with this much legal baggage should officially be over, but this is Trump we’re talking about. The dude makes no apologies, has no shame, and continually respawns like a Grand Theft Auto character on a 24-hour killing rampage. 

And since the Republican Party is now basically the Jonestown Cult without the complimentary beverages, few GOP luminaries—including elected officials—will dare gainsay him.

Indeed, in the wake of his conviction, the party of law and order is queuing up to kiss his arse in perpetuity. And Trump himself is trying to divert attention from his own crimes by claiming that New York—and the nation as a whole—is hopelessly steeped in lawlessness because Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is only paying attention to this one case.

(Actually, the crime wave that started under Trump has now ebbed, and crime as a whole is close to a 50-year low—except among former U.S. presidents, of course. Among that admittedly narrow cohort, it’s up approximately 100%.)

Ah, but now is not the time to be complacent. Trump’s goose might look cooked, but one thing we’ve all learned over the years is that no matter how grotesque and silly he might appear at any given moment, he keeps coming back. He’s sort of like Jason Voorhees that way. Or Infrastructure Week.

Indeed, we’ve seen this movie many times, and it’s always set us up for sequels. Which means we’re not done fighting this cancer—not by a long shot.

Here are 11 times it looked like the Trump train had—or should have—officially derailed, only for some weak-kneed enabler (I’m looking at you, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell) to lift it back onto the tracks and send it on its merry way. (Note: This list is not chronological, and it’s by no means exhaustive.)

1. The “Access Hollywood” tape

For many, this was the first time it looked as though Trump was cooked for sure. You can’t gleefully admit to serial sexual assault and still be elected president, right? Right?! It’s over! Let’s spike the ball right here—on the 10-yard line. What could possibly go wrong now?

Ah, memories. As we now recall, this seismic October surprise was ultimately papered over with the infamous Jim Comey letter, and Trump was elected our 45th—and first future felon—president. 

2. His campaign launch

Many forget that Trump’s campaign stumbled right out of the gate when he infamously declared that Mexican immigrants were criminals and rapists. The remarks were offensive (and false) enough to prompt NBC to sever ties with their star reality show host. Sadly, they weren’t quite offensive enough for Republican primary voters. Indeed, his remarks probably gave him an edge over his opponents, who were still relying on dog whistles as Trump was blithely blowing an airhorn.

3. Mocking a disabled reporter

There have been numerous instances involving Trump saying or doing something so beyond the pale, it felt like no one outside the fringiest of fringes could possibly still support him. And yet they did.

In November 2015, he cruelly mocked reporter Serge Kovaleski, who has arthrogryposis, a condition that “can impact the function and range of motion of joints and can cause muscles to atrophy.” 

It was the ugliest thing most longtime political observers had ever seen, and yet it somehow failed to dissuade millions of Republican primary voters, who proudly nominated him as the Republican presidential candidate in July of the following year.

As long as I live, I will never understand how this alone wasn’t the end of it. pic.twitter.com/2MaLkBJ2Xo

— Damien Owens (@OwensDamien) November 15, 2016

4. Disrespecting Gold Star families and John McCain

In July 2015, Trump downplayed GOP Sen. John McCain’s military service, saying, “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

Roughly a year later, he was disrespecting military families again (well, their lost loved ones were suckers and losers, right?). After Gold Star father Khizr Khan, whose son died in the line of duty in Iraq, spoke on Hillary Clinton’s behalf during the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Trump showed once again that he has the impulse control of an Arby’s grease fire.

In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Trump first claimed that, contrary to what Khan had said in his address, Trump actually had made sacrifices for his country by employing “thousands and thousands of people.”

Then he attacked Khan’s wife, Ghazala, saying, “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably—maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."

Oh, boy! He won’t survive this one! He’s like a shark with three barrels stuck in him! It’s over! Right?

5. The Mueller probe

We all thought this investigation would enfeeble Trump beyond hope of recovery, didn’t we? And then Bill Barr happened.

After months of waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to drop his report on Russian election interference, we did get some real answers about the Trump campaign’s extensive contacts with the Russians involved in ratfucking the 2016 presidential election—and we also discovered that Trump had gone out of his way to obstruct the investigation. But Barr furiously spun the report’s findings, and nothing much came of them.

Trump continued to claim his innocence, even after a later Senate investigation definitively proved collusion between Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and a Russian intelligence officer. But by that time the public had largely moved on.

6. Charlottesville

We all recall when Trump both-sidesed Nazis. Nazis! How the fuck can you both-sides Nazis?!

Well, Trump can—and he did.

“You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides,” Trump said in the wake of the violent white-ring Charlottesville protests.

Seriously, dude, these are NAZIS! World War II—and pretty much every war movie filmed in its wake—made very clear that these are the bad guys.

Ah, but Trump loves to move the Overton window, and sadly, Nazi apologia was not a bridge too far for the GOP. 

7. Extorting Ukraine/first impeachment

You’d think withholding congressionally approved military funds meant to aid a democratic ally caught in a life-or-death struggle with a hostile authoritarian regime would be enough to get you impeached and convicted. Especially if you were doing it to compel that ally into digging up dirt on your likely future opponent.

You’d think.

Well, you’d be wrong, because … Republicans.

The Government Accountability Office determined that Trump had broken the law in withholding the funds, but that wasn’t nearly enough for the law-and-order party, which continued to pretend Trump was the most brutally persecuted—and unluckiest—human in history.

8. The Helsinki Surrender Summit

If you had any doubts about Trump’s lickspittle obeisance to Russian war criminal Vladimir Putin, they were put to rest after this sorry incident.

At a joint press conference with Putin in July 2018, Trump took the dictator’s word over the findings of our own intelligence agencies (who had determined Russia interfered in our elections).

“[Putin] just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be,” he said.

For once, Trump’s remarks actually seemed to scandalize stalwart Republicans. As The Associated Press wrote at the time, “The reaction back home was immediate and visceral, among fellow Republicans as well as usual Trump critics. ‘Shameful,’ ‘disgraceful,’ ‘weak,’ were a few of the comments. Makes the U.S. ‘look like a pushover,’ said GOP Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee.”

But, in the end, nothing really changed, as Republican spines dissolved faster than Lindsey Graham’s dignity at the Mar-a-Lago omelet bar

9. Jan. 6 and the Second Impeachment

Okay, he’s really done now, right? Right?

Violently attempting to overthrow the government is so egregious, even Graham dropped the ocher abomination. (Sadly, a little more than a month later, he came groveling back.)

Unfortunately, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, while clearly upset by Trump’s outrageous attack on democracy, refused to back his conviction, preserving his eligibility for future office. And before the month was over, Rep. Kevin McCarthy—apparently assuming Trump was the ticket to a long and rewarding speakership—helped rehabilitate his image among the “fuck your feelings and our 245-year-old democracy crowd” by hurrying to Mar-a-Lago to sample every square inch of Trump boots.

Thanks, guys!

10. The E. Jean Carroll judgment

Yeah, Trump was found civilly liable for lying about sexually assaulting writer E. Jean Carroll in a department store. And, sure, he’s being forced to cough up $83 million. What of it?

Trump assured us Carroll wasn’t his type, and as we all know, Trump never lies. The fact that he later thought an old picture of her was a photo of his ex-wife Marla Maples is irrelevant, and definitely not something you should spend any time thinking about. Especially if you’re a Republican.

MAGA ‘24, baby!

11. Four—four!—felony cases ... and 4 million Republican yawns

It might seem like a cop-out to shove all of these into one catchall category, but when you really think about it, one felony charge should have been enough. And yet Republicans were able to ignore 91 with unprecedented aplomb.

Besides, two of those four felony cases were related to Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election and install himself as a dictator, and Republicans had already established that they don’t care about such picayune matters.

Also, who doesn’t steal box loads of highly sensitive government secrets and randomly stack them in a heavily trafficked ballroom at a country club? That’s what the U.S. is all about. If they can go after Trump for that, they can go after you for doing the same thing. Think about it. It’s just common sense.

And if it’s this easy to ignore 91 felony charges, ignoring 34 convictions should be a doddle, now shouldn’t it? 

Of course, both President Joe Biden and Trump have stressed that the real verdict will come on Nov. 5. And they’re not wrong.

As we’ve clearly seen, we voters are the only ones who can put an end to this feral fuckery. No doubt y’all are happy about this verdict—I know I am—but there’s “happy” and then there’s “cosmically orgasmic.” We haven’t attained the latter yet—and we won’t until Trump is permanently consigned to the Walmart parking lot dumpster of history.

In other words, now is no time to get cocky. We need to run through the tape all the way through November—which means our work has just started.

We can all do something to help push Biden over the goal line, whether that involves donating or getting out the vote (phone-banking, door-knocking, postcard-writing, talking to friends, etc.). But the last thing we can be is complacent. We all remember how we felt when Clinton lost in 2016—it’s far too early to let our guard down. Too much is at stake.

So by all means, celebrate over the next couple of days, but then get back in the trenches and fight like your life depends on it. Because, you know, it very well might.

Daily Kos’ Postcards to Swing States campaign is back, and I just signed up to help. Please join me! Let’s do this, patriots! Democracy won’t defend itself.

Every day brings a new prognostication that is making President Joe Biden's campaign operatives worry or freak out. Is Donald Trump running away with the election? No. Not even close.

What to know in the Supreme Court case about immunity for Donald Trump

The Supreme Court has scheduled a special session to hear arguments over whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted over his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.

The case, to be argued Thursday, stems from Trump's attempts to have charges against him dismissed. Lower courts have found he cannot claim for actions that, prosecutors say, illegally sought to interfere with the election results.

The Republican ex-president has been charged in federal court in Washington with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, one of four criminal cases he is facing. A trial has begun in New York over hush money payments to a porn star to cover up an alleged sexual encounter.

The Supreme Court is moving faster than usual in taking up the case, though not as quickly as special counsel Jack Smith wanted, raising questions about whether there will be time to hold a trial before the November election, if the justices agree with lower courts that Trump can be prosecuted.

The justices ruled earlier this term in another case that arose from Trump's actions following the election, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court unanimously held that states could not invoke a provision of the 14th Amendment known as the insurrection clause to prevent Trump from appearing on presidential ballots.

Here are some things to know:

WHAT'S THE ISSUE?

When the justices agreed on Feb. 28 to hear the case, they put the issue this way: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

That's a question the Supreme Court has never had to answer. Never before has a former president faced criminal charges so the court hasn't had occasion to take up the question of whether the president's unique role means he should be shielded from prosecution, even after he has left office.

Both sides point to the absence of previous prosecutions to undergird their arguments. Trump's lawyers told the court that presidents would lose their independence and be unable to function in office if they knew their actions in office could lead to criminal charges once their terms were over. Smith's team wrote that the lack of previous criminal charges “underscores the unprecedented nature” of what Trump is accused of.

NIXON'S GHOST

Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in disgrace nearly 50 years ago rather than face impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal from office by the Senate in the Watergate scandal.

Both Trump's lawyers and Smith's team are invoking Nixon at the Supreme Court.

Trump's team cites Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a 1982 case in which the Supreme Court held by a 5-4 vote that former presidents cannot be sued in civil cases for their actions while in office. The case grew out of the firing of a civilian Air Force analyst who testified before Congress about cost overruns in the production of the C-5A transport plane.

“In view of the special nature of the President's constitutional office and functions, we think it appropriate to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility,” Justice Lewis Powell wrote for the court.

But that decision recognized a difference between civil lawsuits and “the far weightier" enforcement of federal criminal laws, Smith's team told the court. They also invoked the high court decision that forced Nixon to turn over incriminating White House tapes for use in the prosecutions of his top aides.

And prosecutors also pointed to President Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon, and Nixon's acceptance of it, as resting “on the understanding that the former President faced potential criminal liability.”

TIMING IS EVERYTHING

The subtext of the immunity fight is about timing. Trump has sought to push back the trial until after the election, when, if he were to regain the presidency, he could order the Justice Department to drop the case. Prosecutors have been pressing for a quick decision from the Supreme Court so that the clock can restart on trial preparations. It could take three months once the court acts before a trial actually starts.

If the court hands down its decision in late June, which would be the typical timeframe for a case argued so late in the court's term, there might not be enough time to start the trial before the election.

WHO ARE THE LAWYERS?

Trump is represented by D. John Sauer, a former Rhodes Scholar and Supreme Court clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. While serving as Missouri’s solicitor general, Sauer won the only Supreme Court case he has argued until now, a 5-4 decision in an execution case. Sauer also filed legal briefs asking the Supreme Court to repudiate Biden's victory in 2020.

In addition to working for Scalia early in his legal career, Sauer also served as a law clerk to Michael Luttig when he was a Republican-appointed judge on the Richmond, Virginia-based federal appeals court. Luttig joined with other former government officials on a brief urging the Supreme Court to allow the prosecution to proceed. Luttig also advised Vice President Mike Pence not to succumb to pressure from Trump to reject some electoral votes, part of Trump's last-ditch plan to remain in office.

The justices are quite familiar with Sauer’s opponent, Michael Dreeben. As a longtime Justice Department official, Dreeben argued more than 100 cases at the court, many of them related to criminal law. Dreeben was part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and joined Smith's team last year after a stint in private practice.

In Dreeben's very first Supreme Court case 35 years ago, he faced off against Chief Justice John Roberts, then a lawyer in private practice.

FULL BENCH

Of the nine justices hearing the case, three were nominated by Trump — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. But it's the presence of a justice confirmed decades before Trump's presidency, Justice Clarence Thomas, that's generated the most controversy.

Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, urged the reversal of the 2020 election results and then attended the rally that preceded the Capitol riot. That has prompted calls for the justice to step aside from several court cases involving Trump and Jan. 6.

But Thomas has ignored the calls, taking part in the unanimous court decision that found states cannot kick Trump off the ballot as well as last week's arguments over whether prosecutors can use a particular obstruction charge against Capitol riot defendants. Trump faces the same charge in special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution in Washington.

Campaign Action

Rudy Giuliani’s Law License Suspended In New York

A New York court has suspended the law license of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who also served as personal attorney to former President Donald Trump.

The court claims that Giuliani made “demonstrably false and misleading” statements to courts, legislators, and the public about the 2020 election in his capacity as Trump’s attorney.

In their decision to suspend Giuliani’s license, the court wrote, “These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent’s narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client.” 

The court stated that Giuliani had made false claims about the number of absentee ballots that had been counted in Pennsylvania after Joe Biden had won the state’s electoral votes.

The court also stated, “We conclude that respondent’s conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law, pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee.”

RELATED: Wisconsin Senate Passes Bill To Make Badger State A ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary

What Rudy’s Side Is Saying

Attorneys for Giuliani, John Leventhal and Barry Kamins, said that they were “disappointed” with the court’s decision: “Our client does not pose a present danger to the public interest. We believe that once the issues are fully explored at a hearing Mr. Giuliani will be reinstated as a valued member of the legal profession that he has served so well in his many capacities for so many years.” 

Giuliani has denied any wrongdoing. In a statement to the New York Post, Giuliani likened the action to the Soviet Union stating, “It’s a complete invasion of my First Amendment rights and my rights as an attorney, I’m allowed to have a client.” 

He continued, “President Trump is not allowed to have a lawyer, of course it’s a partisan hit. I didn’t do anything wrong. There’s nothing I said that a witness didn’t tell me. We’re getting to be like East Germany.”

RELATED: Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera And Dana Perino Blast ‘Pathetic, Sleepy’ Biden Gun Control Speech 

Legal Issues For Rudy

Rudy Giuliani is facing several legal actions.

He is the defendant in a $1.3 million lawsuit where Dominion voting systems has accused him of defamation.

Giuliani claimed after the 2020 presidential election that Dominion voting machines were programmed to flip Trump votes to Biden votes. Another voting machine company, Smartmatic, has also filed suit against Giuliani.

He is scheduled to appear in court on Thursday in relation to the Dominion case.

On April 28, federal agents raided Giuliani’s home and office as part of a separate investigation by federal prosecutors in Manhattan of Giuliani’s activities in Ukraine

The feds claim Giuliani violated lobbying laws by acting as an unregistered foreign agent while working in his capacity as Donald Trump’s lawyer. 

RELATED: IRS Reportedly Rejects Christian Non-Profit Tax-Exempt Status: ‘Bible Teachings’ Are ‘Typically Affiliated With The Republican Party’  

Giuliani can now request a post-suspension hearing. He has 20 days to do so.

President Trump also weighed in, calling Giuliani the greatest mayor in the history of New York City.

 

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #16 on Feedspot’s “Top 70 Conservative Political Blogs, Websites & Influencers in 2021.”

The post Rudy Giuliani’s Law License Suspended In New York appeared first on The Political Insider.

Kevin McCarthy Warns ‘Do Not Trust Nancy Pelosi’ When She Says She Won’t Act On Packing Supreme Court

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) went on Fox News on Thursday to warn those who are against packing the Supreme Court that they should not relax just because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claimed that she would not to pursue Democrat proposals to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

During this appearance, McCarthy reminded everyone of comments Pelosi had made on impeachment before using impeachment twice against former President Donald Trump.

McCarthy’s Warning About Pelosi

“What you find from the Democrats, they don’t want to just defund the police. They want to remove all police officers,” he said. “That’s the new cry. But now, we’re finding what you just played here. They want to dismantle the Supreme Court because they’re trying to dissolve the American way.”

“Think about it, three co-equal branches. They have two branches right now,” McCarthy added. “The only thing that holds them back from their socialist views going forward that are unconstitutional like a D.C. statehood is the Supreme Court that would stand up for the American people.”

Backstory: Democrats Move To Introduce Legislation To Pack The Supreme Court

“So they want to pack the court to protect their power,” he said. “It’s all about one thing, control. And do not trust Nancy Pelosi when she says she will not move it.”

“Remember, that’s what she said about impeachment before she moved impeachment twice,” McCarthy concluded. “We’ve watched her time and time again to come to what the socialists actually asked for. She surrendered to the socialists many times before, and she will do it again.”

McCarthy Attacks Democrats

This came hours after McCarthy publicly attacked Democrats for trying to pack the Supreme Court.

“This should scare every single American, regardless of where you stand politically,” McCarthy warned. “The Democrats inside Congress today would rather dismantle this nation than dignify the Constitution. This just goes to show how far the Democratic Party has moved. There almost are no longer common sense or moderate Democrats elected.”

“Even Joe Biden in the past was opposed to this,” he added. “Those Democrats on the Supreme Court were opposed to this because what this simply does is it’s about control.”

“It’s overtaking a branch of government simply to have your control over a nation,” McCarthy said. “It must be the scariest thing I’ve ever heard them do. I never thought they would go this far. But now they’re not only proposing it — they’re moving it in legislation form.”

Full Story: Kevin McCarthy Rips Democrats For Court-Packing Push – ‘Should Scare Every American’

This piece was written by James Samson on April 16, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Israel Pulls Off Daring Commando Raid Against Iran
Fox News’ Harris Faulkner Gushes Over Biden For His ‘Iconic’ Empathy – He’s ‘So Present And So Kind’
Trump Celebrates After Sen. Murkowski Indicates She May Not Run Again – ‘Great News’

The post Kevin McCarthy Warns ‘Do Not Trust Nancy Pelosi’ When She Says She Won’t Act On Packing Supreme Court appeared first on The Political Insider.

Judge Orders Hunter Biden To Appear For Sworn Testimony

Hunter Biden got some very bad news this week when an Arkansas judge ordered him to appear in person next month to testify in a paternity lawsuit filed by his baby mama Lunden Alexis Roberts, a former stripper.

Circuit Judge Holly Meyer ordered Biden to appear in person for a deposition after he tried to argue that he would be unavailable to do so until April, according to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Meyer, however, was not having any of it.

“He needs to make himself available and unless his hair is on fire, he needs to be in Arkansas and he needs to be in a deposition,” she told the lawyers representing the two feuding parties on a recent phone call.

MORE NEWS: What if Biden drops out?

Biden initially denied that he was the father of Roberts’ child, but a paternity test then proved he was indeed the father back in January. The current legal battle is over child support, which Biden claims he can’t pay because he is unemployed.

Clint Lancaster, Roberts’ lawyer, had sought to depose Biden before March 13, but his lawyer Brent Langdon claimed that he would not be available until April 1. Meyer found this hard to believe, given the fact that Biden doesn’t have a job.

“My question to you is, why could your client not be available until after April 1? All the information I have is that he’s unemployed,” she said.

Langdon would not elaborate on what supposedly is keeping Biden so busy.

Democrats reportedly fear that Biden testifying could further damage his father Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, which is already struggling enough as it is, according to The Blaze. When he testifies in court, Biden could be forced to reveal all about his business dealings in Ukraine, which came under heavy scrutiny in the impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump.

MORE NEWS: Sanders won’t attend pro-Israeli forum, loathes Israel

Meyer had previously ordered Biden to appear in court in January, when it was alleged that he was improperly withholding financial records. She told him at the time to “show cause, if any exists, as to why he should not be held in contempt for any of the alleged violations of this Court’s orders.”

We’re glad to see that Meyer is forcing Biden to testify next month. The Biden family is as crooked as they come, and the American people deserve to know the truth about what they have really been up to all these years.

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Hollywood seemingly turns on Democrats after disastrous debate: ‘What a mess’
Police backtrack on initial Obama-era DHS whistleblower ‘suicide’ reports—FBI investigating his death
Hillary Clinton breaks her silence about her Harvey Weinstein connections after he’s convicted of rape charges

The post Judge Orders Hunter Biden To Appear For Sworn Testimony appeared first on The Political Insider.

Roberts Not Allowing Rand Paul’s Question About Whistleblower Is Ruffling Feathers

Chief Justice John Roberts isn’t merely a disappointment. He is part of the cabalist infrastructure.

Roberts, who is presiding over President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, has rejected questions from Sen. Rand Paul on a few occasions and gone to the Democrats and asked theirs. Paul let it be known he wanted to know about the whistleblower and if that individual would ever be called as a witness, but Roberts has decided to shelve that opportunity.

Why do you think Justice Roberts denies the president the opportunity to confront his accuser? Why does he deny the Senator’s right to freedom of speech? There is no legal nor constitutional guarantee or even offer of anonymity for a whistleblower. There is no credible fear of death or physical harm; after all, he did not blow the whistle on a Clinton.

MORE NEWS: Dave Chappelle: “I Don’t Look at Trump Supporters as My Enemy”

Beginning but not ending with his handling of the FISA court and the appointments thereto, the next impeachment should be his. Justice Roberts’ behavior saddens me, but not surprised. He has been suspect since the Obamacare trial.

None of this corruption in Washington would ever have seen the light of day if it were not for Donald Trump. The exposure of the fraud and treasonous behavior within the government itself and the complicit media will make him the single most important person in American history if the country is to go forward as it was founded.

There are some things we need to keep in mind?

MORE NEWS: 2020 Dem Michael Bloomberg Will Run $10 Million Gun Control Ad During Super Bowl

First, Chief Justice Roberts is the reason Obamacare initially survived in the Supreme Court when during the eleventh hour and 59th minute, he switched sides. It was so late in the process that Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion ends with the following words: “I respectfully dissent.” The only problem is that when you file a concurring opinion, you are not dissenting. What happened? Justice Ginsburg wrote her opinion when she thought she would be in a 5-4 minority.

Second, in my opinion, there is absolutely no legal basis for Chief Justice Roberts to refuse Paul’s question. The question is far more relevant than other questions that have been posited by the Chief Justice. Also, there was nothing in the question that identified the whistleblower as Eric Ciaramella or any other person.

Third, even if somebody wants to argue that the question “outs” the whistleblower, that is not a basis for Chief Justice Roberts to not read the question. Nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended (“ICWPA”), which amended the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, is anonymity even mentioned. On October 10, 2012, President Barack Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 19, which provided specific whistleblower protections. Nothing in this directive provided anonymity for an intelligence community whistleblower; the directive prohibited retaliation against a whistleblower.

MORE NEWS: Fox Refuses To Air Super Bowl Ad About Abortion Survivors – Greenlights Commercial Featuring Drag Queens

The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else. Under the statutory framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired, or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements. However, identity protection is neither provided for nor contemplated, anywhere in the statutory language.

Senator Paul should submit another question about Ciaramella, and when Roberts refuses to read it, object, and demand a count of Senators willing to overrule Roberts. It’s time to find out how many Senators believe that the accused has the right to face his accuser!

Sections 7(B) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 “provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable: “The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the investigation,” according to FactCheck.org.

Since Senator Paul is not the Inspector General (and neither am I), he is not precluded (and neither am I) from releasing the name of Ciaramella as the whistleblower.

More Stories From WayneDupree.com

 

The post Roberts Not Allowing Rand Paul’s Question About Whistleblower Is Ruffling Feathers appeared first on The Political Insider.

Harvey Weinstein Trial Escalates As Former ‘Project Runway’ Assistant Testifies About Forced Encounter

By PopZette Staff | January 28, 2020

The trial of disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein continued to escalate on Monday as a former assistant on the reality show “Project Runway” broke down while testifying about the sexual assault she allegedly suffered at his hands.

Mimi Haleyi told the New York City court that she tried to fight Weinstein off, saying that she kept saying “no, no, no” as he assaulted her, according to USA Today.

“I did reject him, but he insisted,” Haley testified. “Every time I tried to get off the bed, he would push me back and hold me down.”

RELATED: Actress Evan Rachel Wood Gets Major Backlash For Calling Kobe Bryant A ‘Rapist’ After His Death

Haleyi, who is one of two women whose allegations make up the current case against Weinstein in New York, said that she had gone to the movie producer’s Soho apartment back in 2006 in a car he sent for her. She thought that she was going to meet with him about working on one of his movies, but instead, she said that Weinstein pushed her on a bed at his home and forcibly engaged in sexual acts despite her repeated protests.

Haleyi went on to say that she recalled thinking “I’m being raped” during the attack. She also remembered asking herself, “If I scream rape, will someone hear me?” before she finally simply “checked out.”

“I couldn’t get away from him at all. … I checked out and decided to endure it,” she told the court. “That was the safest thing I could do.”

Earlier today, the court heard the testimony of Elizabeth Entin, who was Haleyi’s roommate at the time of the alleged attack. Entin testified that Haley told her about the assault as soon as it happened.

“And she came in, and he started rubbing her shoulders, kissing her, and she said no, no, and he wouldn’t stop, and she said, ‘I’m on my period,’ and he said, ‘I don’t care,’ at which point, he threw her down … and started (assaulting) her as she was saying no,” Entin told the court.

Entin remembered telling her roommate, “Miriam, that sounds like rape. … Why don’t you call a lawyer?”

“She still just seemed very distraught and was shaking and didn’t really want to pursue it or talk about it,” she explained. “She wasn’t very present.”

RELATED: Chilling Footage Emerges of Kobe Bryant’s Helicopter Flying Erratically Before Crash

Weinstein is currently facing five charges in New York related to his alleged crimes against Haleyi and one other woman. He has plead not guilty to all charges, denying that any of his sexual encounters with the women were nonconsensual.

Prior to being hit with numerous sexual assault charges, Weinstein was one of the most powerful men in Hollywood. He was also a major donor to the Democratic Party who had close ties to lawmakers like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Rocket Strikes U.S. Embassy in Baghdad
More GOP Senators Could Defect in Impeachment Trial
Bolton Manuscript Leaked, Romney and Collins May Vote Against the President

The post Harvey Weinstein Trial Escalates As Former ‘Project Runway’ Assistant Testifies About Forced Encounter appeared first on The Political Insider.

Judge Demands Hunter Biden Appear In Court After Failing To Hand Over Financial Documents

An Arkansas judge has ordered Hunter Biden to attend a court hearing after violating court orders that demanded he hand over various financial documents.

Biden Must Appear In Court On January 29th

Judge Holly Meyer, of Indepence County Circuit Court in Arkansas, granted and signed an “Order to Appear and Show Cause” against Hunter Biden. The motion was filed by Clinton and Jennifer Lancaster, the attorneys for Lunden Alexis Roberts. Roberts is the mother of Biden’s child and is currently engaged in a paternity battle with him. The order compels Biden to turn up to a court hearing on January 29th. He will need to explain why he has refused to hand over documents relating to his finances in the past five years. Biden did not comply with a January 16 deadline to hand over the documents.

Roberts, whose child was declared as Biden’s at the start of the month by a judge after DNA tests confirmed he was the father, had previously claimed she was paid by Biden’s company from May to November 2018. In court filings, Roberts said she received “pay stubs for money received from the defendant [Biden] when she was employed by him and his company” but “never received a tax document for these payments.” She also claimed her health insurance was paid for her at one point via this arrangement.

RELATED: Hunter Biden Complains That His Baby Mama Is Trying to ‘Embarrass’ Him

Not Related to Impeachment

Roberts and her lawyers are not the only people to have raised questions about Hunter Biden’s finances. Republicans in Congress have also brought up issues with his past business dealings with the Ukrainian gas company, Burisma. President Trump is being impeached by the Democrats right now for asking those exact same questions.

Clinton Lancaster confirmed to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the court motion had nothing to do with the ongoing impeachment trial of President Trump.

“My understanding is impeachment proceedings are ongoing,” he said. “I have not received any subpoena. I don’t believe we have any stake in the impeachment proceedings. We don’t have any stake in it whatsoever. We need his income so we can determine child support.”

RELATED: Schiff: Calling Hunter Biden to Testify an ‘Abuse’ of Impeachment Process

Hunter Biden’s flippant dealings with the court system in this country really show his true character. By refusing to hand over documents relating to his finances, it makes you wonder exactly why he wants to stop a judge looking through his transaction history!

The post Judge Demands Hunter Biden Appear In Court After Failing To Hand Over Financial Documents appeared first on The Political Insider.