Tag: trump derangement syndrome

NY Dem Suggests Trump Supporters Need ‘Re-education Camps’ Following ‘MAGA Nightmare’

A Democrat running for Congress in New York suggested that supporters of Donald Trump might need to be subjected to “re-education camps.”

Paula Collins argued during a heated Zoom Townhall meeting that these camps would “put it all together again” after enduring what she described as a “MAGA nightmare.”

Her remarks came while discussing the aftermath of the 2024 election.

“Even if we were to have a resounding blue wave come through, as many of us would like, putting it all back together again after we’ve gone through this MAGA nightmare and re-educating basically, which, that sounds like a rather, a re-education camp,” Collins said.

“I don’t think we really want to call it that,” she added. “I’m sure we can find another way to phrase it.”

Keep reading

The Myth That Biden Had Nothing to Do with the Prosecutions of Trump

The five criminal and civil prosecutions of Donald Trump all prompt heated denials from Democrats that President Biden and Democrat operatives had a role in any of them.

But Joe Biden has long let it be known that he was frustrated with his own Department of Justice’s federal prosecutors for their tardiness in indicting Donald Trump.

Biden was upset because any delay might mean that his rival Trump would not be in federal court during the 2024 election cycle. And that would mean he could not be tagged as a “convicted felon” by the November election while being kept off the campaign trail.

Politico has long prided itself on its supposed insider knowledge of the workings of the Biden administration. Note that it was reported earlier this February that a frustrated Joe Biden “has grumbled to aides and advisers that had Garland moved sooner in his investigation into former President Donald Trump’s election interference, a trial may already be underway or even have concluded…”

If there was any doubt about the Biden administration’s effort to force Trump into court before November, Politico further dispelled it—even as it blamed Trump for Biden’s anger at Garland: “That trial still could take place before the election and much of the delay is owed not to Garland but to deliberate resistance put up by the former president and his team.”

Note in passing how a presidential candidate’s legal right to oppose a politicized indictment months before an election by his opponent’s federal attorneys is smeared by Politico as “deliberate resistance.”

Given Politico was publicly reporting six months ago about Biden’s anger at the pace of his DOJ’s prosecution of Trump, does anyone believe his special counsel, Jack Smith, was not aware of such presidential displeasure and pressure?

Note Smith had petitioned and was denied an unusual request to the court to speed up the course of his Trump indictment.

And why would Biden’s own Attorney General, Merrick Garland, select such an obvious partisan as Smith? Remember, in his last tenure as special counsel, Smith had previously gone after popular Republican and conservative Virginia governor Bob MacDonald.

Keep reading

SMACKDOWN: FOX News Reporter John Roberts Catches Biden Campaign in a Lie and Brings ALL the Receipts

The Biden campaign recently accused John Roberts of lying about a Trump era policy that Biden is trying to take credit for and they are now living to regret it.

Roberts took to the airwaves on Wednesday and disproved the Biden campaign’s accusation and he brought all of the receipts to back up his argument.

You can tell from the way Roberts addresses this that he is not cool with what Biden’s people tried to do here.

RedState reported:

The “Biden-Harris HQ,” which is an official arm of the Biden campaign, found itself facing pushback after it claimed Fox News’ John Roberts had told a “blatant lie” regarding Trump and insulin prices. Here’s what the post, which still hasn’t been deleted or corrected, looked like.

The problem? Their “fact-check” is factually untrue, and Roberts wasn’t willing to take the accusation lying down. Instead, he took the airwaves with a handful of receipts and delivered a takedown of the Biden campaign.

ROBERTS: Yesterday, coming out of a segment in which the $35 insulin co-pay under the Inflation Reduction Act was mentioned, I remarked that I recalled back in May of 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that stated President Trump had a plan to lower insulin co-pays to $35. The Biden campaign’s rapid response issued a post on X saying the following: “Fox host tries to claim Trump, not President Biden capped insulin at $35 a month. Fact-check: This is a blatant lie.”

But there are receipts to dispute the Biden campaign’s claim about what I said.

Keep reading

Elon Musk’s X Urges Supreme Court for Review After Jack Smith Obtained Trump Files

Elon Musk’s X Corp. has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider stepping in against a process that lets officials obtain information from social media companies and bars the companies from informing people whose information is handed over.

The process wrongly enables officials to “access and review potentially privileged materials without any opportunity for the user to assert privileges—including constitutional privileges,” lawyers for X said in a filing to the nation’s top court.

Unsealed documents in 2023 showed that X provided data and records from former President Donald Trump’s Twitter account to special counsel Jack Smith after Mr. Smith obtained a search warrant.

X was blocked from informing President Trump by a nondisclosure order that Mr. Smith also obtained.

The order said disclosing the warrant would result in “destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy to the investigation,” and let President Trump “flee from prosecution.”

X challenged the order, arguing it violated its First Amendment rights and noting that President Trump might have reason to claim executive privilege, or presidential privilege. The company wanted to alert the former president so he could assert the privilege, but U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled against it, claiming during a hearing that the only reason X was issuing the challenge was “because the CEO wants to cozy up with the former president.”

Keep reading

Chuck Schumer’s Brother Works For Law Firm Behind Bragg’s Get-Trump Indictment

Following Donald Trump’s conviction in Manhattan last week, Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer proclaimed, “The undeniable fact is Donald Trump went through the same legal process that all Americans go through, he was tried according to the facts and the law, and he was found guilty by a jury of his peers.” 

Nothing could be further from the truth, and Schumer knows it because his brother’s law firm, branded the “Biden-Era N.Y. Power Center” by Bloomberg, spurred the indictment of the former president.

Sen. Schumer’s brother, Robert Schumer, is a partner in that law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison. As I detailed Monday, Paul, Weiss granted three highly paid attorneys leaves of absence to join the Manhattan district attorney’s office in its targeting of Donald Trump. And Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of the former president came about only after the intentional leaking of a resignation letter from Mark Pomerantz, one of the Paul, Weiss attorneys on loan to the DA. 

In his resignation letter, Pomerantz criticized Bragg for failing to seek criminal charges against Trump and for indefinitely suspending the investigation into the former president. The letter was soon provided to The New York Times, creating a political firestorm over the news that Bragg did not intend to charge Trump.

Pomerantz’s ploy worked: Bragg soon publicly claimed the investigation was ongoing and then moved to “jump start” his investigation into Trump by hiring yet another outsider, Matthew Colangelo.

Colangelo left Biden’s Department of Justice to join Bragg’s get-Trump team, having previously been appointed by Biden as acting associate attorney general — the third-highest-ranking official in the DOJ. Following Colangelo’s arrival, Bragg indicted Trump, resulting in last week’s conviction.

This road to Trump’s conviction isn’t even in the same universe as the “legal process that all Americans go through.” In fact, the Manhattan DA scoring a top criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor on leave of absence from Paul, Weiss to work “solely on the Trump investigation” was so out of the ordinary that even The New York Times acknowledged that “the hiring of an outsider is a highly unusual move for a prosecutor’s office.” 

Even more unusual, though, was Pomerantz’s resignation letter that declared, “I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations of the Penal Law in connection with the preparation and use of his annual Statements of Financial Condition” — accusations soon leaked to The New York Times, which led to a Biden administration lawyer leaving the DOJ to work on a state court prosecution. This is most assuredly not business as usual in the criminal justice system.

Sen. Schumer undoubtedly knows this and Paul, Weiss’s connections to the Manhattan DA’s prosecution of Donald Trump because his brother is a partner at the firm. And so does Joe Biden, who during a June 2019 fundraiser at Paul, Weiss gave a “shoutout” to Robert Schumer. 

Keep reading

34 REASONS the Bragg-Biden Show Trial Should Have Been TOSSED OUT — Each One Alone Providing Grounds for a Mistrial

1. Unconstitutional Gag Order that prevented President Trump from criticizing the trial, exposing the many conflicts that should have forced the judge to recuse himself, and the railroading of his fundamental due process rights.

2. Judge Merchan’s many, many conflicts of interests – all of which were disqualifying. His daughter, Loren Merchan, is President of Authentic Campaigns, a political consulting firm that hires the likes of the Biden-Harris Campaign, Adam Schiff, Ilhan Omar, and many other far left Democratic lawmakers. Loren’s firm has made tens of millions off these clients – Juan Merchan, through his daughter, had a direct financial stake in the outcome of this trial, a flagrant breach of the canons of legal ethics, both under the ABA and NY State, that under any other judge would have been grounds for a recusal.

3. Judge Merchan’s wife was previously employed by Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York State who campaigned on “getting” Donald Trump.

4. Bragg’s Lead Prosecutor was Matthew Colangelo, the former #3 official at the DOJ. We are told Colangelo graciously decided to step down from his prestigious office to work for a lowly state DA’s office – of course, a reasonable inference would be that he was directed to do so by the Biden Regime to persecute his leading political opponent in Donald John Trump.

5. Statute of Limitations (2 years, NY State) had long expired for the business records falsification scheme that served as the primary charge brought against Trump. For this reason, the case was passed over by the DOJ and even Alvin Bragg over seven years because it was so weak. Only once Bragg felt political pressure, externally via Clinton attorney Mark Pomerantz, who previously worked in Bragg’s office, and internally via Colangelo, a Biden lackey, did Bragg buckle under the political weight and press charges.

6. Venue in bright-blue Manhattan, a borough that voted for Joe Biden over Donald Trump at almost a 9 to 1 clip, prevented the President from ever getting a fair trial, because the pool of jurors was naturally biased against the 45th President, and could not possibly rule fairly and impartially (8 of the 12 cited the NY Times as their main source of news). Any pro-Trump jurors who were considered chose to self-select out themselves because they claimed they “could not rule fairly.” Case in point: no way in hell is the burden of proof met on any of these charges, and yet the jury pool consisted of two lawyers, who evidently believed just that. No reasonable juror, and especially no reasonable lawyer-juror, would have found that the elements of every single crime brought against Trump met the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.

7. Election Interference: This was not a new case: it had been circulating in various court systems, federal and state, for years. These charges were only brought this year to interfere with the 2024 presidential race, period. President Trump is now the leading presidential candidate, by every reputable poll, and the frontrunner by significant margins, a gap that has only expanded over time. There is no reason why this case should be brought now, six months before Election Day, unless there was a conspiracy to prevent President Trump from being on the campaign trail in key swing states, like PA, MI, AZ, and GA, which is exactly what occurred.

Keep reading

Alvin Bragg’s Office Accused of Leaking Trump’s Potential Sentence to ‘The View’ — Likely to Recommend a Year Behind Bars for Trump at Rikers Island

The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who is backed by Soros, is now under fire for allegedly leaking sensitive sentencing information about former President Donald Trump to the far-left media.

In the wake of a trial widely criticized as a sham, where Trump was convicted on all 34 felony charges in a ‘hush money’ scandal, sources suggest that DA Bragg’s office may recommend Trump serve a year at the notorious Rikers Island.

Judge Merchan told jurors they did not have to agree on a crime—a practice unheard of in US history. The jury only had to agree that something bad happened.

This, of course, is completely unconstitutional. This was clearly the greatest travesty of justice in American history.

So now we have a convicted US President with 34 felony counts, and NO ONE knows what crime President Trump committed!

The sentencing was set for July 11—three days before the Republican convention!

Now, ‘The View’ co-host Sunny Hostin, who seemed quite pleased with the developments, shared on the air that she had spoken with someone from Bragg’s office.

She described them as ‘street fighters,’ who indicated that Bragg might push for a tough one-year imprisonment, primarily to ensure Trump faces the daunting conditions of Rikers Island.

Keep reading

Gloat While You Still Can

In the pre-gloat hours before the verdict in Judge Juan Merchan’s courtroom,

Lawfare caporegime Andrew Weissmann (“Mueller’s Pitbull”) confessed Valley Girl style from his MSNBC clubhouse perch, “. . . I mean, I am, like, now I have a man-crush on him, he is such a great judge!” Bromance on, looks like! If the two happen to frequent the same athletic club in downtown Manhattan, Judge Merchan better be careful in the post-workout shower when he  bends over to pick up the soap. The Pitbull cometh!

     Of course, the Alvin Bragg victory in the artfully constructed “Stormy Daniels Payoff Case” decided late Thursday calls to question how come the Mueller Special Counsel Probe into 2016 election interference (actually run by Mr. Weissmann, due to Mr. Mueller’s declining cognitive ability) failed to spot the same web of evidence — hard as they toiled, and they had a good two years and millions of taxpayer dollars to git’er done?

     My guess: too many white lawyers on the Mueller staff. Everybody knows now from watching the latest crop of television commercials that white people are unusually stupid and helpless and cannot cope with common problems without assistance from helpful people of color (POCs). So, God bless Alvin Bragg for finally fixing what Bob Mueller’s fifteen bloodhounds led by a pitbull somehow botched.

The former president is now convicted on thirty-four counts of book-keeping errors in furtherance of an alleged 2016 federal election violation that the Federal Election Commission declined to charge — that is, paying a porn star to sign a non-disclosure agreement about a sexual liaison — because it is not a crime under federal election law, and about which the head of the FEC, James E. “Trey” Trainor III, was barred by Judge Merchan from testifying on during the course of the trial for reasons yet unknown.

     Of course, that is but one of a great many points of law that will merit appeal in what everybody — even some white people (people of non-color, PONCs) — knows was a case so crookedly contrived that it is fated to get tossed in the higher courts, and probably with harsh remonstrance to the degenerate officers of the court who brought it and adjudicated it. But you will have to wait on that because the mills of the law grind slowly.

     Now, in the radiance of the full Woke gloat, we await Judge Merchan’s sentence, to be announced a mere few days before the Republican Convention in Milwaukee in early July. Jail time at Rikers? Home confinement (with ankle bracelet)? Severe travel restrictions? Reporting to a parole officer? Drug tests? Hey, No one is above the law! It is hard to imagine that the judge will demur from inflicting maximum humiliation on this wanton repeat violator (thirty-four times!) of book-keeping errors. It would tend to interfere with the presidential candidate’s campaign schedule, but so what? Where does it say in the Constitution that an election must be fair?

Keep reading

Reuters: Trump Supporters Want ‘RIOTS And Violent Retribution’ After Verdict

Reuters says that it has conducted a “review of comments on three Trump-aligned websites: the former president’s own Truth Social platform, Patriots.Win and the Gateway Pundit.”

The piece continues, “Some called for attacks on jurors, the execution of the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, or outright civil war and armed insurrection.”

The article then quoted one comment that stated “Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” referring to the judge, and adding “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete.” 

The piece quotes another comment on Gateway Pundit, that states “Time to start capping some leftys. This cannot be fixed by voting.”

The article quotes several more comments calling for violence, but admits that some have since been removed.

Reuters also charges that since the 2020 election Trump “loyalists have responded with a campaign of threats and intimidation targeting judges and court officials.”

The article also quotes Jacob Ware, a research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has recently published a book on “far right terrorism.”

Ware charges that Trump has an “ironclad ability to mobilize more extreme supporters to action, both at the ballot box and through violence.”

“Until and unless he accepts the process, the extremist reaction to his legal troubles will be militant,” Ware added.

This all comes after Joe Biden labelled violent BLM protests “peaceful” and contrasted them to January 6th protesters “storming” the capitol.

Keep reading

Trump’s Conviction Suggests Jurors Bought the Prosecution’s Dubious ‘Election Fraud’ Narrative

After deliberating for a little more than a day, a Manhattan jury on Thursday found Donald Trump guilty of falsifying 34 business records to aid or conceal “another crime,” an intent that turns what would otherwise be misdemeanors into felonies. If you assumed that the jury’s conclusions would be driven by political animus, this first-ever criminal conviction of a former president is the result you probably expected in a jurisdiction where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 9 to 1. But in legal terms, the quick verdict is hard to fathom.

That’s not because there were so many counts to consider, each related to a specific invoice, check, or ledger entry allegedly aimed at disguising a hush-money reimbursement as payment for legal services. Once jurors accepted the prosecution’s theory of the case, it was pretty much inevitable that they would find Trump guilty on all 34 counts. But that theory was complicated, confusing, and in some versions highly implausible, if not nonsensical. Given the puzzles posed by the charges, you would expect conscientious jurors to spend more than an afternoon, a morning, and part of another afternoon teasing them out.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump stemmed from the $130,000 that Michael Cohen, then Trump’s lawyer and fixer, paid porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election to keep her from talking about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. When Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017, prosecutors said, he tried to cover up the arrangement with Daniels by pretending that he was paying Cohen, whom he had designated as his personal attorney, for legal work.

Cohen testified that Trump instructed him to pay off Daniels and approved the plan to mischaracterize the reimbursement. Cohen was the only witness who directly confirmed those two points, and the defense team argued that jurors should not trust a convicted felon, disbarred lawyer, and admitted liar with a powerful grudge against his former boss. But even without Cohen’s testimony, there was strong circumstantial evidence that Trump approved the payoff and went along with the reimbursement scheme.

The real problem for the prosecution was proving that Trump falsified business records  with “an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”—the element that was necessary to treat the misleading documents as felonies. Prosecutors said the other crime was a violation of Section 17-152, an obscure, little-used provision of the New York Election Law. Section 17-152 makes it a misdemeanor for “two or more persons” to “conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” But prosecutors never settled on any particular explanation of “unlawful means,” and Juan Merchan, the judge presiding over the trial, told the jurors they could find Trump guilty even they could not agree on one.

Keep reading