Maine Secretary of State Claims Politics Played ‘No Role’ in Booting Trump Off Ballot

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows has denied that politics played any role in her unilateral decision to bar former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot, as she faces backlash that includes a push for her impeachment.

Ms. Bellows, whose office oversees elections in Maine, ruled on Dec. 28 to disqualify President Trump, who currently leads the Republican primary race, from the state’s 2024 presidential primary ballot on the grounds that he supposedly incited an “insurrection” when a crowd breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Her decision was based on an interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars people from holding office if they’ve engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. government. President Trump, who has denied such allegations, has not been charged with insurrection.

While Ms. Bellows has been accused of making a politically-driven decision to interfere in the election, she denied that her decision to disqualify President Trump from the ballot was political.

“Politics and my personal views played no role,” Ms. Bellows, a Democrat, claimed in a Jan. 1 interview with NPR. “I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that is what I did.”

Despite such denials, Ms. Bellows has faced sharp criticism.

Keep reading

‘Significant Problem’: Ex-CIA Analyst Warns Intel Agencies Will Meddle in 2024 Election to Stop Trump

A former CIA analyst is sounding the alarm about plans by intelligence agencies to get politically involved in the 2024 election to stop the Republican candidate.

Dr. John Gentry, a Georgetown professor who spent 12 years as a CIA intelligence analyst, said the politicization of intelligence agencies in the age of Trump has become a “significant problem” and is confident they will interfere in the 2024 election.

“My guess is that the the proverbial Deep State within the intelligence community will reemerge because presumably a Republican candidate will again be seen as a threat to the internal policies that many intelligence people like,” Gentry told Fox News.

Gentry pointed out how the CIA in a “clearly political” move days before the 2020 election with the “intent to help the Biden campaign” approved a letter penned by 51 former intelligence officials falsely claiming the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop published by the New York Post was “Russian disinformation.”

Gentry said he expects intelligence agencies to resume similar political ploys ahead of the 2024 election.

Keep reading

Secretary Of State That Kicked Trump From Maine Ballot Wants ‘Better Leaders’ In Power To Prevent ‘Election Sabotage’

The precedent being set by states like Colorado and Maine could change the political landscape of America forever if allowed to go unchallenged.  Removing presidential candidates from the ballot based on unilateral opinion rather than any kind of legally arbitrated decision or criminal conviction is the most slippery of slopes for a number of reasons.  The most dangerous implication being that a handful of officials can decide for the entire population of their states (or the entire population of the country) what leaders they are allowed to vote for based on a “guilty until proven innocent” ideology.

Meaning, all they have to do is make accusations of criminal behavior or criminal intent and then remove a candidate based on those accusations alone

No person or group should have that power.

One could argue that this is already the case and that the two party system filters out candidates on a regular basis.  However, the notion of state ballot removal is a decidedly leftist/Democrat affair clearly engineered to benefit the progressive power structure for many years to come. 

It’s not only about Donald Trump – Woke bureaucrats could use this trend in the future to deny ballot access to any conservative candidate on the grounds that they “might” represent a “threat to Democracy.”

This is essentially the message conveyed by Secretary of State Sheena Bellows, now well known as the person responsible for single-handedly removing Trump from the 2024 election ballot in Maine. 

Keep reading

Was the Capitol Riot an ‘Insurrection,’ and Did Trump ‘Engage in’ It?

“It’s self-evident,” President Joe Biden told reporters on Wednesday. “You saw it all. He certainly supported an insurrection. No question about it. None. Zero.”

Biden was referring to the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent ruling that Donald Trump is disqualified from that state’s presidential primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was originally aimed at barring former Confederates from returning to public office after the Civil War. As relevant here, Section 3 says “no person shall…hold any office, civil or military, under the United States…who, having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

Biden, whose reelection bid would get a big boost from Trump’s disqualification, takes it for granted that the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol qualified as an “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment, and he says there is “no question” that Trump “engaged in” that insurrection. But the Colorado Supreme Court’s reasoning on both of those crucial points is iffy, and I say that as someone who thought Trump richly deserved his second impeachment, which was provoked by his reckless behavior before and during the riot.

On its face, that impeachment supports the court’s decision, which was joined by four of seven justices. The article of impeachment, after all, charged Trump with “incitement of insurrection” and explicitly cited Section 3. But that debatable characterization was not necessary to show that Trump was guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Trump’s misconduct included his refusal to accept Biden’s victory, his persistent peddling of his stolen-election fantasy, his pressure on state and federal officials to embrace that fantasy, the incendiary speech he delivered to his supporters before the riot, and his failure to intervene after a couple thousand of those supporters invaded the Capitol, interrupting the congressional ratification of the election results. All of that was more than enough to conclude that Trump had egregiously violated his oath to “faithfully execute” his office and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” It was more than enough to justify his conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors in the Senate, which would have prevented him from running for president again.

Achieving the same result under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, by contrast, does require concluding that Trump “engaged in insurrection.” But in reaching that conclusion, the Colorado Supreme Court never actually defines insurrection.

“At oral argument,” the opinion notes, “President Trump’s counsel, while not providing a specific definition, argued that an insurrection is more than a riot but less than a rebellion. We agree that an insurrection falls along a spectrum of related conduct.” But the court does not offer “a specific definition” either: “It suffices for us to conclude that any definition of ‘insurrection’ for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.”

That description suggests a level of intent and coordination that seems at odds with the chaotic reality of the Capitol riot. Some rioters were members of groups, such as the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, that thought the use of force was justified to keep Trump in office. But even in those cases, federal prosecutors had a hard time proving a specific conspiracy to “hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power” by interrupting the electoral vote tally on January 6. And the vast majority of rioters seem to have acted spontaneously, with no clear goal in mind other than expressing their outrage at an election outcome they believed was the product of massive fraud.

Keep reading

The Velvet Fascism of “Protect our Democracy”

Deciding that a person who has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, insurrection is guilty of insurrection and therefore cannot run for president…that is “protecting our democracy” in action.

Whenever that term is used, one can be assured that the democracy they are referring to has no semblance to any actual democracy.

In this case, “ours” does not mean “all of ours” – it means “theirs.”

What they are protecting is their democracy; not a democracy of the people, but now merely a word used to fig leaf the ever-expanding slither of socialist socialite statism, the velvet fascism that is deftly hammering its way through the society and the culture.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot there is absurd, legally indefensible, and a direct attack on the entire constitutional premise of the nation.

It eviscerates the basic right of the people to choose – however one may think of their choice – their own leader.

It torpedoes the idea of the balance of powers between the three branches of government. Until yesterday, judges have almost always steered clear of most election-related cases, in part because of that issue. In fact, the mantra that “Trump lost every challenge he made in court to the 2020 election” is true because, three years ago, courts did everything they could to not hear the cases – issues of standing, issues of timing, and issues well, what do you what me to do? Order a new vote? Few – if any – were heard on their merits.

The United States Supreme Court even ruled that a group of states did not have standing to sue states they thought mishandled the 2020 election. One would think a state would have standing in court to challenge how another state ran their elections because who is president impacts every state, but still the Supremes passed on even hearing an argument.

That is yet another reason this ruling is so mind-boggling dangerous – the precedent set is catastrophic to the point that the President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele was right when he tweeted “The United States has lost its ability to lecture any other country about ‘democracy’.”

Keep reading

Yielding to Temptation: Colorado’s Supreme Court Blocks Democracy to Bar Trump on the 2024 Ballot

The Colorado Supreme Court has issued an unsigned opinion, making history in the most chilling way possible. A divided court barred Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot. 

For months, advocates have been filing without success in various states, looking for some court to sign off on a dangerous, novel theory under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. They finally found four receptive jurists on one of the bluest state supreme courts in the land.

Even on a court composed entirely of justices appointed by Democratic governors, Colorado’s Supreme Court split 4-3 on the question. The majority admitted that this was a case “of first impression” and that there was “sparse” authority on the question. Yet, the lack of precedent or clarity did not deter these justices from making new law to block Trump from running. Indeed, the most controlling precedent appears to be what might be called the Wilde Doctrine. 

In his novel, The Picture of Dorian GrayOscar Wilde wrote that “the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.” The four Colorado justices just ridded themselves of the ultimate temptation and, in so doing, put this country on one of the most dangerous paths in its history.

The court majority used a long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “disqualification clause” — that was written after the Civil War to bar former Confederate members from serving in the U.S. Congress. 

In December 1865 many in Washington were shocked to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy’s onetime vice president, waiting to take the same oath that he took before joining the Southern rebellion. Hundreds of thousands of Americans had just died after whole states seceded into their own separate nation with its own army, navy, foreign policy and currency. So Congress declared that it could bar those “who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

January 6, 2021, was many things — and all of them bad. However, it was not an insurrection. I was critical of Trump’s speech to a mob of supporters that day, and I rejected his legal claims to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election in Congress. However, it was a protest that became a riot, not a rebellion.

Keep reading

NY Times Targets Pro-Trump Memes, Equates Them with Deepfakes and Advocates for Regulation

It’s that time of the US election cycle again: what were formerly known as “newspapers of record” attempting to, for political reasons, promote odd ideas like regulating jokes.

It’s the New York Times this time, looking like it’s terrified that Donald Trump might be successful in his new presidential bid, and so going guns blazing after what it calls his “troll army.”

And “troll” here means – meme creators. As for the memes themselves, the NYT either pretends not to or doesn’t get the joke – namely, that they are jokes, and basically treats them as sinister tools for peddling misinformation and deepfakes.

To add insult to the paper’s injury, the memes not only support the Trump campaign, but Trump also enjoys them, and takes time to communicate with the meme creators.

The article claims that there is a large number of “sexist and racist tropes” being repeated in these memes, but singles out a video collection of some of President Biden’s many gaffes.

Trump apparently liked the original and used it during his rallies, but the gaffes are truly so many, that he thought a few more could be added to the video, which the creator was happy to do.

This, the NYT treats as a very serious matter, referring to the creator as “effectively” being no less than a member of “a shadow online ad agency” for Trump – even though he does not work for him.

What happened to the right to back a presidential candidate, express it in a humorous way, and not be treated with suspicion and described in over-the-top dramatic tone, such as that these creators with the memes, “brutally denigrate” Biden, and show “unrelenting cruelty of internet trolls” who resort to “vulgar invectives”?

But it’s the suggested “solutions” that are the most bizarre part of the article.

One is the implication that memes should be treated as ads that run on TV and radio, meaning, regulated for “accuracy, fairness and transparency.”

Keep reading

Karine Jean-Pierre and top Biden spokesman inappropriately used their roles to influence elections with attacks on ‘MAGA’ Republicans, government watchdog rules

White House spokespeople Karine Jean-Pierre and Andrew Bates violated the Hatch Act when they had been warned against using the word ‘MAGA’ to describe certain Republicans, a government watchdog agency said on Friday.

The independent Office of Special Counsel said the two took actions ‘contrary’ to official guidance on the law when they slammed ‘MAGA’ Republicans’ budget plan this year.

In their letter, first reported by NBC News, the office notes the violations came days after Jean-Pierre was warned she had violated the law intended to prevent federal employees from using their offices to influence elections.

This summer, the Office of Special Counsel notified government officials that ‘MAGA’ and similar terms were effectively off-limits for use as they were seen as campaign-related slogans. 

The ruling came after OCS’s June finding that Jean-Pierre was in violation of the Hatch Act when she repeatedly referred to ‘MAGA Republicans’ in the run-up to the 2022 midterm election. No action was taken against Jean-Pierre.

‘MAGA’ is the campaign slogan for former President Donald Trump. The OSC did say that the use of ‘MAGAnomics’ is permitted.

‘We take the law seriously and uphold the Hatch Act,’ a White House official told DailyMail.com.

Jean-Pierre, Bates and other officials repeatedly cite the Hatch Act in press briefings when declining to answer reporters’ questions about President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign or about Trump’s candidacy. 

But Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, and Bates, who is deputy White House press secretary, have used the word ‘MAGA’ repeatedly when talking about ‘extreme MAGA Republicans’ and their agenda.

Keep reading

DC Judge Refuses To Let Trump See Evidence In His Own J6 Trial

D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has denied former President Donald Trump’s motion to subpoena records from the House of Representatives’ Jan. 6 committee, arguing that his requests are like a fishing expedition.

Her seven-page decision criticized the scope and alleged vagueness of President Trump’s requests. It also argued that he was improperly applying Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 to information that could be obtained through other means.

Defendant has not met his burdens with respect to his proposed Rule 17(c) subpoenas,” Judge Chutkan said.

“He has not sufficiently justified his requests for either the ‘Missing Materials’ themselves or the other five categories of documents related to them.”

Quoting the United States v. Cuthbertson, she added that the “broad scope of the records that defendant seeks, and his vague description of their potential relevance, resemble less ‘a good faith effort to obtain identified evidence’ than they do ‘a general fishing expedition that attempts to use the [Rule 17(c) subpoena] as a discovery device.'”

President Trump’s initial motion from Oct. 11 requested purportedly “missing materials” that the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 had allegedly failed to preserve and transfer to another congressional committee.

Fox News reported in August that Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight for the Committee on House Administration, accused the select committee of failing to provide certain communications with the Biden administration, as well as video recordings of depositions and interviews leveraged by the select committee.

Keep reading

Special Counsel Jack Smith Sought Info On Anyone Who ‘Favorited Or Retweeted’ Trump Tweets

Special Counsel Jack Smith hunted information on X users who liked or retweeted posts published by former President Donald Trump, according to redacted search warrants and other documents released Monday.

According to the heavily redacted document issued to then-Twitter in January, the court ordered the social media giant to forfeit a bevy of information regarding Trump’s account, including “advertising information, including advertising IDs, ad activity, and ad topic preferences,” as well as IP addresses “used to create, login, and use the account” and privacy and account settings.

The warrant also demanded information such as Trump’s search history, direct messages, and “content of all tweets created, drafted, favorited/liked, or retweeted” by his account from October 2020 to January 2021.

Though the warrant was first covered in August, it was again released as part of a court order after numerous media organizations filed to obtain the document to shed light on the Smith-led special counsel’s “investigation into Trump’s actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol,” according to the New York Post. Smith previously indicted Trump in August on several bogus charges related to the former president’s challenging of the 2020 election results in the lead-up to Jan. 6, 2021.

But it wasn’t just Trump’s Twitter account that Smith and his cronies were targeting. The special counsel’s warrant also sought data on Twitter users who interacted with the former president’s account. Among the information Smith sought was a list of every user Trump “followed, unfollowed, muted, unmuted, blocked, or unblocked” during the aforementioned timeframe. Smith similarly demanded that Twitter, which has since rebranded as X, fork over a list of users who took any of the same actions with Trump’s account.

Keep reading