Tag: wrongthink

Florida Probes JPMorgan Over Truth Social Debanking

Florida’s Attorney General James Uthmeier has opened a major investigation into JPMorgan Chase after disclosures that the bank severed ties with Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG), the company behind the free speech social media platform Truth Social, and may have shared sensitive data with the Biden administration’s Justice Department as part of the “Arctic Frost” investigation.

In a formal notice, Uthmeier stated that JPMorgan’s conduct “may implicate numerous Florida criminal and civil antifraud laws and de-banking prohibitions,” and directed the bank to preserve all documents and communications related to the matter.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

The Arctic Frost probe was initially presented as a limited inquiry into President Donald Trump’s activities following the 2020 election.

It has since expanded into a wide-reaching operation involving numerous Republican lawmakers, conservative groups, and individuals.

Reports indicate that federal agents issued secret subpoenas to financial institutions and technology companies, demanding extensive amounts of private and financial information.

JPMorgan’s involvement came to light when Devin Nunes, CEO of Truth Social and Chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, appeared on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo on November 9. During the interview, Nunes revealed that JPMorgan had “inexplicably debanked” TMTG as the company was preparing to go public in early 2024.

He suggested that the timing was connected to the Justice Department’s broad subpoena requests and criticized both the bank and federal officials for what he described as politically motivated actions that may have violated the law.

Keep reading

J.P. Morgan Quietly Helped Jack Smith Target Trump Media

The weaponization of federal power has reached a new level. 

In a shocking revelation, Special Counsel Jack Smith secretly subpoenaed J.P. Morgan Chase for the private banking records of Trump Media and Technology Group—despite the company not existing at the time of January 6. 

The move, uncovered by Trump Media CEO Devin Nunes, represents yet another case of the Justice Department extending its political reach far beyond reason or legality.

Trump Media became a public company in 2024, years after the events that Smith’s investigation supposedly focused on. 

Yet, Smith’s “Arctic Frost” operation went after Truth Social’s bank records as though it were somehow connected to the Capitol protests. 

That alone raises the question: what possible justification could exist for subpoenaing a company that didn’t exist at the time of the alleged crime? 

None—unless the motive was political.

As Nunes explained in his interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, the subpoena was not only unjustified but also secret. 

Trump Media was never notified. Even more concerning, J.P. Morgan Chase—one of the largest banks in the world—complied without question. 

For a company headquartered in Florida, such cooperation with an unfounded federal demand may have violated both state and federal laws. Yet the bank went further.

At the height of Trump Media’s public offering in early 2024—just as Truth Social was preparing to go public and raise $250 million—J.P. Morgan abruptly “debanked” the company. 

That decision, coming amid active cooperation with the Biden Department of Justice, effectively sabotaged a major free speech enterprise. 

It was a clear act of corporate compliance with political intimidation.

J.P. Morgan later told Fox News that it does not close accounts for political reasons.

Keep reading

JPMorgan Discloses Government Probe Into Debanking Practices

US regulators are examining whether JPMorgan Chase has denied customers fair access to banking, as pressure grows over debanking decisions that were made against conservative figures, according to reporting from Financial Times and the company’s 10-Q filing.

In its quarterly filing, the bank noted it was “responding to requests from government authorities and other external parties regarding, among other things, the firm’s policies and processes and the provision of services to customers and potential customers”.

JPMorgan linked the scrutiny to an August executive order from Donald Trump directing regulators to review possible “politicised or unlawful debanking”. The bank said related inquiries include “reviews, investigations and legal proceedings,” without identifying the agencies involved.

Bank of America has similarly reported responding to government demands about “fair access to banking.” Industry lobbyists argue that regulatory rules around politically exposed persons and “reputation risk” have pushed banks to deny certain customers.

Recall, just yesterday, we noted that a top bank watchdog was making sure big banks have finally ditched debanking policies. You remember those, right? We sure do. It happened around the same time Google, Paypal and Amazon all banned us due to our (correct) take on the origins of Covid-19 and because they didn’t like our (correct) take on the BLM movement.

For those that missed it, a slew of banks under the Biden administration outright cancelled people’s accounts and didn’t allow them access to a bank account based on the industry they worked in, or many times their political views (surprise, none of them were Democrats).

Jonathan Gould, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC, told a conference that supervisors are double-checking banks really did stop blacklisting sectors like firearms from banks, according to Reuters.

Keep reading

Antifa-Linked Leftist Arrested for Hockey Stick Attack on University of Colorado TPUSA Chapter Secretary

Boulder police have arrested 36-year-old Taylor James Rose of Arvada, Colorado, for assaulting the University of Colorado Turning Point USA chapter secretary with a hockey stick while on rollerblades.

The unprovoked attack, which the victim described as “politically motivated,” occurred just after 7 p.m. on October 23.

The victim, Nathaniel Ellis, a CU Boulder student, was riding his bike when Rose allegedly called him a “fascist” before striking him with the hockey stick.

Rose was arrested on Thursday and charged with second-degree assault, a felony.

Deputy District Attorney McKenna Mayfield explicitly noted the incident was a “politically motivated unprovoked attack.”

Police spoke to a second person of interest, a rollerblader seen with Rose shortly before the assault, who was observed posting flyers near the scene. He is not currently a suspect and is cooperating with detectives.

In a press release about the case, the City of Boulder briefly summed up the incident and charges, but added, “To protect the integrity of this active investigation and future prosecution, the Boulder Police Department is unable to release more specifics at this time.”

According to independent reporting from AntifaWatch, the attack followed the doxxing of Ellis by local Antifa groups who were demanding that he was a “Nazi.”

Rose has allegedly been associated with Denver Communists, where he appeared to introduce himself as an anarchist from Arvada in chat logs discussing protests.

Keep reading

Will The AfD Party Be Banned In Germany?

There are once again efforts to ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the Bundestag, with the far-left Social Democrats (SPD) leading the way. However, there is some difficult math facing the proponents of an AfD ban, which makes it unlikely — but not impossible — for the party to be banned.

In order to understand why a ban is unlikely, let us first look at what would actually happen if a ban of the AfD went forward.

The AfD is currently the most popular party in the country, according to multiple polls, scoring between 25 and 27 percent of the vote. This alone makes a ban unthinkable to many, but the German establishment does not especially care what the electorate thinks on a number of key issues, so why not just ban the party?

For starters, and most importantly, a ban of the AfD would radically reshape the German electorate in favor of the left. This would translate into the Christian Democrats (CDU) losing a massive amount of power, and potentially being relegated to the political dustbin. Due to this cold, hard reality, a ban could be suicidal for the CDU.

How one local elections tells us about the federal election

What happened in the local mayoral election in Ludwigshafen tells us what the likely outcome of an AfD ban would be for the country at the federal level. In Ludwigshafen, the AfD’s Joachim Paul was leading the polls to become mayor before he was banned from running through backroom bureaucratic channels, a move later confirmed by judges during a number of appeals. The judges all argued Paul would have to challenge the ban after the election. Paul is still filing legal actions against the decision, but the outcome of the appeal could take months or even years.

Regardless of the outcome of Paul’s appeal, the election had some interesting outcomes.

First, the voter participation rate crashed to a record low of just 29.3 percent. In 2017’s mayoral election in Ludwigshafen, the then-SPD candidate Jutta Steinruck won with 60.2 percent participation. That means voter turnout was cut in half from that election.

That is not all. For those who did vote, many of them appear to have submitted “spoiled” ballots. A record-high number of ballots were ruled invalid, at 9.2 percent. Eight years ago, that number was just 2.6 percent. The number of “spoiled ballots” jumped by nearly 400 percent.

If this same outcome occurred at the federal level, including a dramatic crash in the voter participation rate as AfD supporters boycott the election, it would be a disaster for the CDU’s electoral chances.

The way the German system works means that the pool of right-wing voters would shrink dramatically, leaving CDU voters and the left as the only remaining voting pool. However, this remaining, much smaller pool, would then feature a dramatically larger share of left-wing voters consisting of the SPD, the Greens, and the Left Party.

Keep reading

Jailed in America for Free Speech

In the aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk, many folks who dared to express views of him and his work outside the mainstream lost their jobs, professional standing and State Department visas as they were fired or otherwise disciplined by employers or bureaucrats who concluded that anti-Kirk views could harm the employers’ businesses or were inconsistent with institutional values.

All discipline based on speech needs to be scrutinized strictly. Yet, even in states with strong public accommodations laws — laws that generally protect free speech in the workplace and in public places — at will employees can generally be disciplined for expressive activities that their bosses reasonably fear may impair the product or services they were hired to produce or deliver, or undermine the values or message of the institution with which they are affiliated.

Thus, reasonable fears of the loss of business or charitable donations due to the anti-Kirk public sentiments may lawfully result in silencing or firing those employees.

Keep reading

Prosecutors Drop Charges Against Tennessee Man Over Facebook Meme

Last month, Tennessee authorities arrested a man for posting a Facebook meme, a clear violation of his First Amendment rights, and held him on a $2 million bond. This week, prosecutors dropped the case, but that doesn’t negate the weeks he spent in jail on a bogus charge.

As Reason previously reported, police arrested 61-year-old Larry Bushart for posting a meme on Facebook. In a thread about the murder of Charlie Kirk, Bushart posted a meme with a picture of President Donald Trump and the quote “We have to get over it,” which Trump said after a January 2024 shooting at Perry High School in Perry, Iowa.

Sheriff Nick Weems of nearby Perry County said Bushart intentionally posted the meme to make people think he was referring to Perry County High School. “Investigators believe Bushart was fully aware of the fear his post would cause and intentionally sought to create hysteria within the community,” Weems told The Tennesseean.

On September 21, deputies arrested Bushart at his house and booked him on a charge of Threats of Mass Violence on School Property and Activities, a felony that carries at least a year in prison. In body camera footage posted online by Liliana Segura of The Intercept, Bushart is incredulous when presented with the charge. “I don’t think I committed a crime,” he tells the officer, jokingly admitting that “I may have been an asshole.”

“That’s not illegal,” the officer replies as he leads Bushart into a cell.

Unfortunately, it was no laughing matter: A judge imposed a $2 million bond. Getting out on bail would require Bushart to come up with at least $210,000. According to the Perry County Circuit Court website, Bushart had a hearing scheduled for October 9, where he could file a motion for a reduced bond, but a court clerk told Reason that the hearing was “reset” for December 4. As a result, Bushart sat in jail for weeks.

Right away, it should have been clear how flimsy the case was. But the sheriff doubled down.

As Segura reported at The Intercept, Weems personally responded to people on Facebook suggesting Bushart was arrested because authorities misread a picture that briefly referenced a prior news event on the other side of the country. “We were very much aware of the meme being from an Iowa shooting,” Weems wrote. But it “created mass hysteria to parents and teachers…that led the normal person to conclude that he was talking about our Perry County High School.”

“Yet there were no public signs of this hysteria,” Segura notes. “Nor was there much evidence of an investigation—or any efforts to warn county schools.”

Keep reading

Ted Cruz EXPLODES on Rogue Activist Judge Boasberg — Demands Immediate IMPEACHMENT After Secret Subpoena of Senators’ Private Phone Records and Barring AT&T from Notifying Them

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, erupted Wednesday in a fiery press conference, calling for the immediate impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, after revelations that the activist judge signed an order secretly authorizing the seizure of his private phone records and other GOP records while blocking AT&T from notifying them.

Cruz revealed during the press conference that the Biden DOJ, under the direction of former special counsel Jack Smith, had targeted him and eight other Republican senators in a blatant fishing expedition.

The subpoenas, issued as part of the sham “Arctic Frost” investigation tied to President Trump’s rightful challenge of the 2020 election fraud, sought cellphone data that Cruz insists is protected under the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution.

Ted Cruz:
“The Biden Justice Department signed off on issuing subpoenas for the phone records of at least nine U.S. senators. Twenty percent of the Republicans in the United States Senate were the target of this fishing expedition. They did so in complete contravention of the Constitution—of separation of powers, of the Speech and Debate Clause, of free speech, of basic rights of privacy.

This is an executive who believes it is justified in spying on their opponents in the legislature because they’ve convinced themselves the ends justify the means.

I want to talk to you about one of those subpoenas. One of those subpoenas went from Jack Smith to AT&T, seeking my cell phone communications. It went to AT&T, and I actually want to commend AT&T for doing the right thing. AT&T is based in Texas. AT&T looked at that subpoena, and they went to their legal counsel and said, “What should we do with this subpoena?” And their legal counsel said, “You cannot comply because this is protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

And so AT&T declined to comply—did not hand over my cell phone records. Now, one might ask: ordinarily, a phone company being asked to hand over the phone records of a sitting senator would notify that senator.”

Judge Boasberg, notorious for his leftist activism and nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s America First agenda, slapped a gag order on AT&T, barring the company from alerting Cruz and others to the subpoena for at least a year.

In his order, Boasberg ludicrously claimed there were “reasonable grounds” to believe disclosure would lead to “destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy to the investigation.

Keep reading

Leftists Are Pushing for Global Speech Censorship

The Democratic Party, and the global Left in general, spent the last five years crying about “mis/disinformation” and the need for more oversight of social media platforms and the Internet in general. It is anathema to the people who think they are our moral and intellectual superiors that we might say, write, or think things with which they disagree.

In moves that would make George Orwell turn over in his grave, the Biden administration tried to force the “Disinformation Governance Board” on America. Turns out that board was born after a 2022 speech given by former President Barack Obama at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center — a speech that pushed for broad censorship of the Internet.

Michael Shellenberger is now sounding the alarm that global censorship is coming unless we stop it.

The entire post is long, but we’ll highlight the most salient (and alarming) points:

But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. Facebook complied with Biden administration demands to censor because it needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. And the Brazilian government forced Elon Musk to continue censoring the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets.

And Public has discovered that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, which is led by Obama’s former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is at the heart of a new, secretive, and possibly illegal censorship initiative that appears even more ambitious than the one Obama proposed in 2022.

On September 24, the Cyber Policy Center hosted a secret dinner between its leaders and top censorship officials from Europe, UK, Brazil, California and Australia. The meeting was titled “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.” Frank McCourt, the same person behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, financed the gathering through his “Project Liberty Institute,” (PLI), toward which he gave $500 million to “strengthen democracy” and “foster responsible technology.”

Keep reading

Don Lemon Attacks “MAGA Ladies” Over Looks, Uses ‘Trans’ as an Insult Against Megyn Kelly

Don Lemon is under fire for attacking conservative media personality Megyn Kelly by using ‘trans’ as an insult.

During a recent episode of his “Clip Farmers” podcast, he and his co-hosts, in a segment that looks like a frat-house reject reunion, discussed the appearance of “MAGA ladies” and began attacking conservative women for their looks rather than their character and substance.

Lemon’s co-host John Cotter asked, “Is Megyn Kelly ‘chopped’?”

Lemon replied, “I don’t know what that means.  I’ve heard it, but I don’t know what that means.  What does ‘chopped’ mean?”

Cotter answered, “She’s gonna get mad at me, dude, I don’t know if I want this heat.”

Lemon asked again, “What does ‘chopped’ mean?”

Cotter responded, “‘Chopped’ means not hot.”

Lemon answered with a cruel smirk, “Yeah. She’s chopped,” after which the three men cackled over insulting women for their looks.

Lemon continued, “I don’t know, the whole ‘MAGA’ look….”

Co-host Chris Miglioranzi gleefully joined the attack on conservative women, adding, “It’s all the MAGA ladies!”

“It’s too much,” Lemon added.

Cotter continued, “Kinda looks like a Barbie doll covered in WD40.”

And then Lemon dropped a very un-PC, and arguably transphobic, insult, “I think she looks trans.”

After an awkward moment that left his two co-hosts in stunned silence, Cotter said quickly, “Let’s end on that note.”

Lemon, instead, doubled down, adding, “I think she looks clockable.”

‘Clockable,’ when referring to a trans person, means that someone can “clock” (recognize or identify) their biological sex rather than the gender they present.

Keep reading