President elect Trump visited the White House Wednesday and Joe Biden was actually nice to him, something rabid TDS carriers couldn’t handle.
Trump thanked Biden for facilitating a smooth transition.
Biden was cordial.
Surprising given the fact that he called Trump a threat to Democracy for four years.
Experts have said that the Missouri v. Biden case is “the most important free speech case in a generation.”
The case involves the federal government wholesale deleting and deplatforming millions of Americans from social media based entirely on their truthful political statements.
Just this past week, the trial court has issued a new order in the case, after an appeal to the Supreme Court was successful for the Biden administration, which sought to undo a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the censorship regime.
Now, the trial court is ordering the two sides to conduct “jurisdictional discovery” so that it can prove one issue critical to the case moving forward: whether the Plaintiffs on the side of free speech have enough legal ‘standing’ to move forward. What this means is that the parties are now going to fight about whether the specific Plaintiffs in the case can prove that they were specifically harmed.
You can read the court order here.
Whereas previously the parties could show the massive censorship regime and show that they were deplatformed, now the parties must show the connection and demonstrate that the specific Biden speech suppression complex deplatformed these specific Plaintiffs.
Thus the court is allowing both parties to issue ‘discovery’ to primarily third parties right now, meaning demand evidence, documents, and depositions from people, organizations, and companies, in order to build the record of evidence both parties need to make their arguments.
The claims in the case cannot rest on mere speculation, the parties need to be able to get tangible evidence to back up their claims. Lawyers involved in the case say the critical issue at this juncture is: proving that the federal government targeted a specific Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s speech was harmed as a result.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Paxton’s legal action seeks to secure a preservation order that would block any potential destruction of records from Jack Smith’s investigation into former President Donald Trump.
The lawsuit highlights a pattern of record destruction by past special counsels and raises concerns about accountability in a “weaponized” justice system under the Biden-Harris regime.
Paxton initiated the lawsuit following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request he filed, seeking access to documents and communications related to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation.
“Past Special Counsels, including—notoriously—Robert Mueller, destroyed records at the end of their investigations to avoid accountability. It is not clear why nobody was prosecuted for doing so. This request is part of my Office’s efforts to ensure that Americans are not cheated out of accountability or information again. This pattern of weaponizing the justice system for partisan retribution must end,” Ken Paxton said.
The letter reads in part:
“The State of Texas is requesting a waiver of all fees, and meets the criteria per Justice Department policy. This information request is in the public interest, as it will provide critical information for the public understanding of the Office of Special Counsel’s activities.
This request does not serve the commercial interest of the Attorney General’s office. This request is made in the State of Texas’s sovereign capacity. And this FOIA request seeks information that is important for the American people.
FOIA serves as “a means for citizens to know what their Government is up to.” And it provides “a structural necessity in a real democracy.” The Texas Attorney General’s Office frequently updates constituents on important, newsworthy information.
The Office issues press releases, and posts news on its website that is frequently reported on by the press. The information from this FOIA request will significantly contribute to the public’s understanding of the Special Counsel’s investigation, particularly when the subject of that investigation has been elected as the 47th President of the United States.”
Smith, appointed by Garland in November 2022, was tasked with investigating Trump just one day after Trump announced his 2024 presidential bid.
Jack Smith spent over $50 million of taxpayer money to hunt down Trump for non-crimes.
Since then, Smith’s investigation has led to a series of high-profile indictments against Trump.
The blame game within the Democratic Party has begun. Supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris are now turning on President Joe Biden and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, blaming the two for her loss in the election against President-elect Donald Trump.
On the morning after the election on Wednesday, Nov. 6, Harris addressed a crowd of her supporters in Washington, D.C. and announced that she had conceded the race to Trump. During her speech, she encouraged her supporters to not lose hope, saying that while the race for the presidency has ended, she has not conceded “the fight that fueled this campaign.”
With Harris’ concession, political analysts, Democratic insiders and regular liberals and supporters of the vice president’s campaign have started pointing fingers in an attempt to find a scapegoat to hold responsible for Trump’s victory.
This election is considered to be a devastating loss to the Democrats, who lost not only the presidency but also the Senate and the House of Representatives – which pollsters thought could flip back to the Democratic Party.
One of the people standing out as prime targets for blame is Biden, with Democrats believing him dropping out far too late deprived the party of being able to democratically decide on a candidate through primaries.
Biden is also being blamed by the party’s left-wing who believe that the Biden administration’s stance on Israel and the Harris campaign’s attempts to appeal to the pro-Israel lobby, to moderate voters and to anti-Trump Republicans were all huge mistakes.
Other Harris supporters have also taken their ire out on Walz for a variety of reasons, including that he is too progressive, too “folksy” and too tainted by the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, which began in Minneapolis following the death of African American man George Floyd.
Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has argued that “it would have been different” if Joe Biden had agreed to stand down earlier than he eventually did.
Biden repeatedly refused to exit the presidential race despite glaring evidence that he is suffering from dementia and other age-related issues.
However, his campaign fell apart after a disastrous television debate with Donald Trump in which he was barely coherent.
This triggered panic among Democratic leaders, with Pelosi and Barack Obama eventually demanding that he step aside. Biden eventually heeded this request in mid-July and endorsed Kamala Harris.
In an interview with The New York Times podcast, Pelosi indicated that allowing Biden to remain in the race proved to be a fatal error.
“Had the president gotten out sooner, there may have been other candidates in the race,” she explained. “The anticipation was that, if the president were to step aside, that there would be an open primary.”
“And as I say, Kamala may have, I think she would have done well in that and been stronger going forward. But we don’t know that. That didn’t happen.”
“We live with what happened. And because the president endorsed Kamala Harris immediately, that really made it almost impossible to have a primary at that time. If it had been much earlier, it would have been different.”
Pelosi was also asked to weigh in on comments by Senator Bernie Sanders that the Democratic Party had lost its key working-class constituencies due to its obsession with identity politics.
“Bernie Sanders has not won,” Pelosi explained. “With all due respect, and I have a great deal of respect for him, for what he stands for, but I don’t respect him saying that the Democratic Party has abandoned the working-class families.”
“Guns, God and gays — that’s the way they say it,” she continued. “Guns, that’s an issue; gays, that’s an issue, and now they’re making the trans issue such an important issue in their priorities; and in certain communities, what they call God, what we call a woman’s right to choose.”
Among the investigations currently carried out by the US House Committee on the Judiciary and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is the one into a case involving UK-based “censorship group” – the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).
In a letter dated November 7, Committee chairman Jim Jordan is asking CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed to, by November 21, comply with a subpoena issued on August 30, 2023.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
According to Jordan, it covers the group’s activities as well, including documents showing the Biden-Harris administration’s alleged collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans’ lawful online speech.
The Biden administration endured another defeat on Thursday when a federal judge tossed out an attempt to legalize hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants married to U.S. citizens.
Introduced in the summer, the “Keeping Families Together” program from the Biden administration offered protection to migrants here in the United States illegally who are married to U.S. citizens.
On Thursday, the Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker ruled the program beyond Biden’s executive authority. America First Legal announced the decision.
“We just WON our lawsuit with Ken Paxton, Raul Labrador, and a coalition of 14 states. We have officially STOPPED the Biden-Harris Administration’s illegal attempt to grant mass amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens,” the organization said.
Gene Hamilton, America First Legal Executive Director, said in a statement provided by Fox News the program would have “provided amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and paved the path for the largest administrative amnesty in American history.”
Actor George Clooney may have to enter the witness protection program before the year is over.
Many liberals who are outraged over the outcome of the election are blaming Clooney for his role in forcing Joe Biden out of the 2024 election.
Clooney wrote a column for the New York Times demanding that Biden step aside after his disastrous debate performance in June.
Now he is facing an angry mob from his own side.
Breitbart News reports:
Democrats Rage at George Clooney for Pushing Biden out Following Trump’s Blowout Victory: ‘It’s All His Fault’
George Clooney is being attacked by despairing fans in the wake of Vice President Kamala Harris’s humiliating defeat in the 2024 election campaign after the actor demanded President Joe Biden step aside in her favor.
As Breitbart News reported, the Ocean’s Eleven actor, 63, notably penned an op-ed for the New York Times in July where he called on Biden, 81, to abandon his presidential campaign, writing: “We are not going to win in November with this president.”
Desperately looking for someone to blame for Kamala Harris not being a competent candidate and losing to president Trump in a massive landslide, Democrats have aggressively turned on Joe Biden.
Reuters notes that one Democratic donor asked “Why did Joe Biden hold on for as long as he did? He should have not concealed his (health) and dropped out a lot sooner.”
Another Democratic official blamed “malpractice” by Biden’s inner circle, stating “No one would tell him ‘no’,” and slating the White House communications and political teams.
“So it’s Joe, but also Joe’s core apparatus. Stunning and well documented chickens coming home to roost,” the official added.
The article further notes that a Kamala aide complained that her campaign was “doomed from the start by her loyalty” to Biden.
Donald Trump has once again won the presidency—and has done so convincingly.
In the coming days and weeks, commentators will spill considerable ink trying to make sense of this result. Mainstream media figures must grapple with the fact that a seemingly disgraced, twice-impeached, convicted felon—one frequently derided as a fascist and a racist—was reelected president. Moreover, he made major inroads with minority communities, vastly improved his totals in various states, and is currently projected to win the popular vote. Make no mistake: This is a significant win for someone deemed not merely unelectable but wholly evil by every elite media institution in existence.
Pundits trying to understand how Trump could have possibly achieved this unthinkable comeback will focus on his message, his issues, and his campaign strategies. They will investigate the aspects of Trump that make him so appealing to throngs of Americans. But they might overlook the single most important contributing factor in Trump’s victory: not an affirmative vote for the candidate, but rather a negative endorsement of his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.
Simply put, Harris was a disastrous candidate. Admittedly, she had a tough job, given that she replaced the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee—President Joe Biden—in the eleventh hour. But keep in mind that Biden was historically unpopular. He bottomed out at a 38 percent approval rating, which made him the least popular president in 70 years. Some of that disapproval was due to his advanced age and obvious cognitive decline, and in that respect, Harris was an automatic improvement.
But the fundamental mistake of the Harris campaign—the one that assured Trump’s reelection no matter how improbable it seemed to elite tastemakers—was assuming that a simple candidate swap would be sufficient. This was egregiously wrong. Biden was not merely unpopular because he was too old to serve as president. He was unpopular because the American voters dislike his policies. On the issues that mattered most to voters—the economy, inflation, and immigration—majorities of voters solidly preferred Trump over Biden, well before the June debate performance that doomed the incumbent president’s candidacy. Voters remembered the Trump economy fondly and blamed Biden’s policies for ever-worsening inflation.
Once Harris was installed as the candidate, she had the opportunity to engage in a reset. While she always faced the inherent difficulty of distancing herself from an administration in which she served, she had every opportunity to throw Biden under the bus and part ways with his policies. She could have criticized his economic setbacks, his foreign policy—which was especially unpopular in the must-win state of Michigan—and his border program.
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.