Tag: trump derangement syndrome

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 Gray, Oscar 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

Hillary Blasted For AGAIN Comparing Trump To HITLER

Presidential loser Hillary Clinton was slammed online Wednesday after once again lazily claiming that Donald Trump is like Hitler.

Clinton cackled along with the women on The View like a coven of witches, before turning her attention to Trump, who it seems still lives rent free inside her head.

“Hitler was duly elected, right?” Hillary declared, adding “And so all of a sudden, somebody with those tendencies, the dictatorial, the authoritarian tendencies would be like, ok, we’re gonna shut this down, we’re gonna throw these people in jail and they usually don’t telegraph that.”

She continued, “Trump is telling us what he intends to do! Take him at his word! The man means to throw people in jail who disagree with him! Shut down legitimate press outlets! Do what he can that literally undermine the rule of law and our country’s values!”

Keep reading

Rep. Eric Swalwell Testifies in Case to Keep Trump Off the Ballot

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) testified on Oct. 30 in a trial in Colorado in a case that seeks to keep former President Donald Trump from appearing on the Colorado primary ballot.

Mr. Swalwell testified via video conference, describing the events of Jan. 6, 2021, from his perspective. He was in the Capitol when the Electoral College votes were being certified and had “gaveled” the Congress in that day, leading the pledge of allegiance.

“We connected the president’s tweets to our own safety in the chambers,” he said, “and the integrity of the proceedings taking place.”

Attorneys showed him a post on Twitter, now known as X, in which President Trump wrote that Vice President Mike Pence didn’t have the “courage” to give states “a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify.”

“USA demands the truth!” the president wrote.

“We interpreted it as a target had been painted on the Capitol,” Mr. Swalwell said.

Keep reading

Trump Lawyer Alina Habba Did NOT Make Jury Request Mistake, Admits Judge.

Donald Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, did not fail to tick a box to request a jury trial in the New York civil fraud case despite widely circulated claims. Judge Arthur Engoron amended his comments of “nobody asked for” a jury trial on Wednesday following the false reports, arguing the claim “keeps coming up”. He explained that New York Attorney General Letitia James “clearly checked off non-jury” before the proceedings began.

“It would not have helped to make a motion, nobody forgot to check off a box,” Engoron explained, adding the punishment sought by the state of New York is an “equitable” remedy rather than a “legal” remedy.

Habba, who was forced to defend herself and the former President’s legal team amidst the false accusations, said in court following clarification, “Thank you, your honor. Press, did you hear that? I didn’t ‘forget to check the box’.”

Keep reading