Tag: 2024 elections

Why Trump’s NY Judge Is Just Interfering in the Election

In Rippo v Baker 589 US _, 137 S. Ct. 905, 197 L. Ed. 2d 167 (2017), the United States Supreme Court held that the Nevada Supreme Court erred by requiring evidence of actual bias to demand a judge’s recusal. The Court held that evidence of actual bias is not required to demand recusal of a judge. In this case, Rippo was sentenced to death after a Nevada jury convicted him of first-degree murder along with other charges. Upon discovering that his trial judge may have been involved in federal bribes, Rippo suspected that the district attorney’s office was investigating the case. Rippo made a motion to disqualify the judge under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that it was impossible for a judge to impartially adjudicate a case in which one of the parties was investigating him, but the judge declined to recuse himself. The trial judge was indicted on federal charges, and a new judge denied Rippo’s motion for a new trial.

On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that Rippo did not have evidence that state authorities were involved in the investigation. Pointing to documents from the judge’s own trial that supported his claim that the district attorney’s office had been involved with the investigation, Rippo sought postconviction relief. The court denied relief, and the Nevada State Supreme Court affirmed showing how courts hold that judges are really above the law.

Analysis: In Bracy v. Gramley 520 U.S. 899 (1997), a U.S. Supreme Court case involving a judge who accepted bribes to rule in favor of some defendants and against others who did not bribe him, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to a discovery hearing. Although the nature of the case was speculative, the petitioner had alleged facts suggesting that his defense counsel may have schemed with the judge to rush the trial. The Nevada Supreme Court held that, unlike Bracy v. Gramley, since Rippo’s allegations did not support the assertion that the trial judge was actually biased, Rippo was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Nevada Supreme Court applied the wrong legal standard. They noted that under the Due Process Clause, a judge may sometimes require recusal even when a judge has no actual bias. To determine whether recusal is required, courts look to whether the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. Because the Nevada Supreme Court did not ask the question of probability but, instead, actual evidence of bias, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment.

Keep reading

‘He Did Not Complete the Degree Program’: Tim Walz Repeatedly Claimed He Was ‘Nearly Finished’ With PhD Years After He Disappeared from University

As recently as 2011, Tim Walz claimed in official biographies for his campaign and congressional office that he was on the verge of completing a doctorate in education, a decade after he enrolled in a Ph.D. program at St. Mary’s University of Minnesota in the small town of Winona.

The university, however, told the Washington Free Beacon that its last records indicating Walz was an active student are dated to 2004.

“We can confirm that Governor Walz attended Saint Mary’s from 2001-2004 in our doctorate level Ed.D. program,” the school’s communications director, Ashly Bissen, told the Free Beacon. “He did not complete the degree program.”

Walz would nonetheless claim through 2011 that he was an active student “nearly finished with his doctorate at St. Mary’s University in Winona, Minnesota,” as his congressional biography put it, four years after he arrived on Capitol Hill.

That claim, like so many others Walz has made about his biography over his political career, was at best a stretch and at worst a lie, the same sort of résumé padding characteristic of other fibs and misrepresentations Walz has made throughout his political career.

But academic dishonesty stands out, including exaggerations. Rep. Andy Ogles (R., Tenn.) last year apologized for stating he had a degree in economics when he’d only taken one economics class and gotten a “C.” The CEO of Yahoo was forced out in 2012 after it was discovered he lied about majoring in both computer science and accounting in college. He only majored in accounting.

Walz, who’d been teaching high school for over a decade, started a course of study at St. Mary’s in 2001, enrolling in a “cohort doctoral program,” a second spokeswoman told the Free Beacon. He stopped taking classes at St. Mary’s in 2004 and never earned a degree, the spokeswoman said.

“Governor Walz was enrolled as part of a cohort doctoral program from 2001-2004 and has not taken classes at Saint Mary’s since that time,” said Michelle Rovang, the school’s vice president of communications.

Walz earned a master’s degree in “experiential education” (an academic term for hands-on learning, a feature of Walz’s work as a teacher) from Minnesota State University, Mankato, in 2002. St. Mary’s told the Free Beacon that the school accepted Walz into its doctoral program on the condition that he’d earn his master’s at nearby Minnesota State.

Getting a master’s degree is an early step toward earning a Ph.D., which requires years of additional study and research and can also require teaching college-level courses and successfully defending a dissertation.

Nonetheless, when Walz ran for Congress in 2006, roughly two years after his last recorded year in the St. Mary’s doctoral program, he portrayed himself on the campaign trail and in Congress as an active student “nearly finished” with his Ph.D. A 2006 voter guide published by the Minnesota Star Tribune indicated that Walz’s Ph.D. was “in progress.”

That year, Waltz defeated a five-term Republican incumbent, Gil Gutknecht, who recently told the Free Beacon, when asked about Walz, that “all political figures are guilty of a bit of puffery. He frequently went well beyond that into prevarication.”

Indeed, as a sitting member of Congress, Walz continued to claim for years that he was finishing his doctoral degree. His congressional website made those claims through 2011, an archived version shows. But by 2012, Walz had removed all references to his impending doctorate from his congressional biography.

Keep reading

US accuses Russia of using state media to spread disinformation before the November election

The Biden administration announced wide-ranging actions Wednesday meant to call out Russian influence in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, unsealing criminal charges against two employees of a Russian state-run media company and seizing internet domains used by the Kremlin to spread disinformation.

The measures represented a U.S. government effort at disrupting a persistent threat from Russia that American officials have long warned has the potential to sow discord and create confusion among voters. Washington has said that Russia remains the primary threat to elections even as the FBI investigates a hack by Iran of Donald Trump’s campaign and an attempt breach of the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris campaign.

One criminal case accuses two employees of RT, a Russian-state funded media organization that was forced by the Justice Department as a foreign agent, of covertly funding a Tennessee-based content creation company to publish nearly 2,000 videos containing Russian propaganda. The defendants, who remain at large, used fake identities and the company was unaware it was being used by Russia.

Keep reading

HERE WE GO: Biden-Harris Regime Launch “Whole of Government Action” to Purge ‘Russian Propaganda’ and ‘Disinformation’ Ahead of 2024 Election

Russia hoax 2.0 incoming.

The Biden-Harris Regime is launching a “whole government action” to purge so-called ‘Russian propaganda’ and ‘disinformation’ ahead of the 2024 election.

Biden will accuse Russia of a sustained effort to influence the 2024 election, according to CNN and NBC News.

“There are some balancing acts that have to be taken here because we have a First Amendment in this country. Even foreign entities have the right to speak in the United States and engage in discourse,” NBC’s Ken Dilanian said.

“Free speech includes the right to lie, and Americans do that all the time in our political discourse. However, they cannot act as a front for foreign disinformation operations. That’s when laws are violated, and the DOJ takes enforcement action,” Ken Dilanian said.

Keep reading

Former Pro-Censorship White House Official, Now Harris Deputy Manager, Aggressively Targets Online “Misinformation”

Rob Flaherty – Kamala Harris campaign’s deputy manager (originally a member of the team put together for the now failed Biden reelection bid) – has spoken about what that campaign is doing about “misinformation.”

That’s one of the favorite subjects – and often tools of political pressure – of the current Biden-Harris administration, and Flaherty is no stranger to any of it.

In the past, he served in the Biden administration as director of digital strategy and played a prominent role in exerting persistent pressure on Big Tech, to get these companies to censor even more content.

Now, Flaherty tells Politico that the Harris campaign’s handling of what it perceives as misinformation is “extremely aggressive” and that it is “constantly” on the lookout for it, “monitoring” the internet – again, “aggressively.”

The reason is to counter “the attacks that are coming in against the Vice President.”

That includes what Flaherty calls “deep detection of what is happening on the internet” on election day. The apparent intent is to come across as aggressive, perhaps as an intimidation tactic.

Flaherty’s other statements, such as hunting down “pockets of misinformation” (like posts that mention the wrong election date) along with threats of lawsuit speak to that.

According to him, the campaign has “a really robust legal team” that is considering its options regarding “voting misinformation” – and Flaherty says these options are many.

Regarding the channels the Harris campaign goes to, to implement “misinformation monitoring and pushing back” one is as expected – the presidential candidate’s own campaign accounts, but the other is quite controversial, yet clearly spelled out by Flaherty – traditional media.

“That’s all part of one big strategy,” the Harris aide shared.

Read more about Flaherty’s history here.

Keep reading

Trump Says He’ll Release Epstein Files If Elected

During a podcast with Lex Fridman, Donald Trump said he has “no problem” releasing all the files on sex trafficker to the elite Jeffrey Epstein, should he be elected in November.

When Fridman brought up the subject, Trump stated “A lot of big people went to that island, but fortunately I was not one of them.”

Fridman noted “It’s just very strange for a lot of people that the list of people that went to the island has not been made public.”

“Yeah. It’s very interesting, isn’t it?” Trump responded.

“So if you’re able to, you will (release the Epstein files)?” Fridman asked.

“I’d certainly take a look at it,” Trump replied, adding “yeah, I’d be inclined to do the Epstein. I’d have no problem with it.”

This could get interesting.

Keep reading

Wisconsin Election Legislative Committees Gives DOT Ultimatum on Non-US Citizens Driver’s License Data in Time for November Presidential Election

In a rather tersely worded directive, the Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections and Senate Committee on Shared Revenue, Elections and Consumer Protection, sent the Wisconsin Department of Transportation Agency Director (DOT) an immediate request for data information that documents how many non-US citizens in Wisconsin have a driver’s license and or a photo ID.

These Committees held a Joint Public Hearing with the DOT regarding this matter in May of 2024 (click here – Elections expert testify about noncitizen voting in Wisconsin – WPR) and the DOT did not comply with the request of the Committees in time for the November 2024 Presidential Election.  WEC Administrator Wolfe was invited to attend this meeting but was a no-show again.

The DOT has since that meeting has refused to release any information due to “privacy” concerns for non-US citizens with a Wisconsin driver’s license.

The DOT request from these Legislative Committees, dated September 3, 2024 (See attached DOT Letter Non-US Citizens Driver’s License), asks for an immediate release of the non-US citizens data from the DOT that have a Wisconsin driver’s license and or a photo ID to assist all Wisconsin Clerks (1,852) in the administration of elections with integrity to make sure only US citizens receive a ballot for the Wisconsin Presidential Election in November.

The DOT was reminded in the Legislative Letter that as a State Agency they (DOT) are absolutely required to release this information upon request to the proper authorities per Wisconsin State Statute 13.45 (7) (click here – Wisconsin Legislature: 13.45).

The DOT was further reminded that this request is in compliance with the Driver Privacy and Protections Act (DPPA) with respect to the Legislative Committees are not a “person”, but rather a “State or agency thereof” per various portions of 18 U.S.C. 2725 (2) (click here – 18 USC 2725: Definitions (house.gov)) and that disclosure of this information is allowed per 18 USC 2721 (a) and (b) (1) and (4) (click here – 18 USC 2721 – Prohibition on release and use of certain personal information from State motor vehicle records (govregs.com)).

Finally, the DOT was reminded that the Governor’s Office wants this information shared between the DOT and the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) to assist all Clerks in the administration of elections with integrity to make sure only US Citizens are participating in Wisconsin Elections.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris Is But a Cog in the Democrats’ Machine

Our fixation on what Kamala Harris knows and believes is rather quaint.

It reflects a traditional view of leadership that Democrats have largely rejected. Instead of decisive figures who guide the nation, the party is driven by untold numbers of elected officials and unelected bureaucrats, academics, and media voices who share a leftwing ideology. Harking back to its earlier history, the party is once again a machine. Its candidates are not visionaries but apparatchiks committed to the program.

The name on the ballot is largely irrelevant. No one is really voting for Harris, but for the party she represents. Still, politics needs a face, so when President Biden’s turned too craggy, she was tapped as a more youthful, attractive spokesmodel. Like Biden, her vacuity is her appeal; she is another empty vessel that Democrat marketing whizzes can fill with blithe slogans – Joy! Freedom!! Goldilocks!!!

Also, like Biden, her lack of insight and conviction is a plus as she is unlikely to offer any pushback to the plan. I’ll stand where you want, say what you want, just please compare me to Lincoln.

If that sounds unfair, note that it is precisely what we have lived through during the stage-managed Biden presidency. As if to underscore the point, the president has been largely MIA since he was selflessly forced, kicking and screaming, to withdraw from the race. Who’s running the government? The machine.

Ironically, Harris’ largely ceremonial role adds a splash of truth to her party’s efforts to hide her. She doesn’t need to grant many interviews or hold press conferences because her own thoughts are largely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what she knows about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, the intentions of China and Iran, or about the economy, health care, and education. Those decisions will be made by the machine. All she can do is jam the gears with word salads and gaffes.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris Pretends To Be On Phone To Avoid Press Questions

You know when you see someone in the street that you haven’t spoken to for aaaaaages and it’s really awkward so you pretend to be on an important phone call to avoid the embarrassment? 

Kamala Harris certainly does.

She’s got earbud headphones in AND she’s holding the phone to her ear. 

She’s double too busy to stop and answer questions.

She’s running for President and can’t face the media. She also cannot do interviews on her own.

Keep reading

Comrade Kamala? Assessing Three of Harris’s New Economic Proposals

The Kamala Harris campaign is still relatively young. The current Vice President and previous US Senator from California has barely been in the race for a month. Her first concrete economic plans are being announced and, for the most part, panned by economists. Let’s examine some of these proposals, their effects, and why economists oppose them.

1. Price Caps on Groceries

Let’s begin with the most shocking Harris proposal—a federal ban on “price gouging” for groceries. Let’s start with the rhetoric and then get down to brass tacks. What is price gouging? It’s a term without any clear tie to economic facts.

Historically, “price gouging” referred to price increases caused by disasters (e.g., bottled water being more expensive during hurricanes). But of course, when demand increases or supply decreases, prices do naturally rise to prevent shortages. Labeling this as “gouging” in certain circumstances is arbitrary at best.

Furthermore, what sort of crisis are we appealing to in order to say there is price gouging? Covid still? Since the Covid pandemic ended over two years ago (even according to Fauci), that really doesn’t make sense. Is the crisis that inflation is making things unaffordable? Well, if the disaster behind this gouging is price increases, then all price increases are defined as gouging. That doesn’t make any sense either.

To be blunt, gouging is just a word used for emotional effect. We can always pick some arbitrary benchmark of “fair” or “unfair” price increases, but that benchmark will remain arbitrary.

Now let’s move to the brass tacks. What would this mean? The way the language is couched, this policy would amount to nothing more than a form of price control. Regardless of the particular form this ban takes, any law which penalizes a store for having prices above some point is a price control. Insofar as this policy affects prices at all, it is a price control. Insofar as it doesn’t affect prices, the policy is spurious.

What’s the problem here? Well, when either demand increases or supply decreases (or both), the competition to buy a good increases relative to the available supply. This means that more people will be bidding for the same number of products. If prices do not rise, the products will run out, and some people who are willing to pay the current price cannot purchase the good in question because it has run out. Economists call this a shortage.

If, instead, prices are allowed to rise, two things happen. First, higher prices cause buyers to decrease their consumption relative to lower prices. Second, higher prices incentivize producers to supply more of a product, since a higher price commands a higher revenue. These two forces work together to make sure that all potential buyers can purchase the number of goods they are willing to pay for.

Harris’s team claims that the pandemic was used by businesses as a pretext to trick people, to increase prices more than rising costs called for, and that this is a corrective measure. So are grocery stores pulling one over on people? Not so.

Keep reading