I hope that they nail the bastard.

“The Biden-era prosecutor who led the criminal cases against Donald Trump has been subpoenaed by Congress.

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday issued a subpoena to former special counsel Jack Smith ordering him to appear for a closed-door session later this month.

During the Biden administration, Smith led two criminal prosecutions of Trump, who if convicted would have spent the rest of his life in prison.

Smith indicted Trump in Florida in 2023 for his handling of classified documents after the FBI raided the president's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach. 

Moreover, Smith led the election interference case against Trump in Washington DC, accusing the Republican leader of trying to subvert the results of the 2020 election.  …”

DailyMail article:
https://mol.im/a/15350099

I know, have faith, however, is someone, anyone, hell even a Somali Pirate here ever getting arrested, convicted, jailed.

Fear it will give the milquetoast portion of the R voter base a reason to not show up at the midterms.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
“No one should be afraid of doing what’s right.”

The problem is that we don’t live in an ideal world.

It absolutely should be the case that no one *should* need to be afraid of doing what is right.

Sadly, in the real world one must consider the consequences of their actions, not what the consequences “should be”, but the whole range of at least what the consequences are likely to be, if not the full range of what the consequences could be.

ETA: That also ignores the possibility of differing opinions on what is right…

Regarding that TikTok video about evidence against Biden, I haven't seen anything about that on any news outlet like Fox or Newsmax. Great if it's true, but why isn't this big news on the 'conservative' news networks?

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:
Regarding that TikTok video about evidence against Biden, I haven't seen anything about that on any news outlet like Fox or Newsmax. Great if it's true, but why isn't this big news on the 'conservative' news networks?

Just figured it was AI as soon as I seen it.

Time to cut off all federal funding to this state, every last penny. Being as how I live in the sane northern part of the state the part Walz never bothers to campaign in (he knows this part of the state is locked in MAGA) and to which he has said there is nothing up there but cows and rocks we get largely ignored fiscally anyhow. Much of the money the Somali's have grifted has been federal money that was given to the state during Covid relief. The Feds get their money from the same place the states do. I really have a mind to not pay my state taxes this year but I know where that would land me.

quote:

Amid reports of a federal crackdown targeting Somali immigrants, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey on Wednesday issued an executive order prohibiting law enforcement from using city-owned parking lots for immigration operations.

As part of the order, Frey directed city staff to post signage at all city-owned or city-controlled parking lots, parking ramps, garages and vacant lots with the following language:

“This property is owned and/or controlled by the City of Minneapolis. The City of Minneapolis does not authorize this property to be used, and it may not be used, by any federal, state, or local government entity or personnel as a staging area, processing location, operations base, or any other similar use for civil immigration enforcement operations.”

Link

There are more than just MN that are this fucked up.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
There are more than just MN that are this fucked up.

True but Minnesota is at the top of the heap.

quote:

This property is owned and/or controlled by the City of Minneapolis. The City of Minneapolis does not authorize this property to be used, and it may not be used, by any federal, state, or local government entity or personnel as a staging area, processing location, operations base, or any other similar use for civil immigration enforcement operations.”

Ok, lawyers out there: does this City action by the City Council and Mayor violate federal law? And, if so, are they not subject to arrest and prosecution?

FAFO - in my dreams…

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
Ok, lawyers out there: does this City action by the City Council and Mayor violate federal law? And, if so, are they not subject to arrest and prosecution?

FAFO - in my dreams…

I’m not a lawyer, but it kinda sounds like a property rights thing. Generally, if one own property own has the right (within limits) to control what others can or cannot do with/on said property.

In my perfect world the Feds would be able to say, “Totally get it. Your property your rules. About any aid you were getting us, our property our rules. You get no aid, no grants, nothing. Have a nice day.”

Of course it probably couldn’t work that way, and if it could I’m sure we wouldn’t like it at all when the GDCs were next in charge.

An interesting question.

Property owners have the right to exclude people from their property, but that right is severely limited if the property is generally open to the public. That’s why restaurant owners, for example, may not exclude people on the basis of their race: “Open to some, open to all.”

Of course that legal principle doesn’t apply to everyone, e.g., “No shoes, no service.” I don’t know what law(s) may be broken by the city’s action that would justify oiling up the guillotine, but even if some sort of Federal preemption doesn’t apply, what about the other principle?

So Tish James skates justice on her mortgage fraud case.

I guess this means that it’s now legal.

I don't know how mayor pajama boy intends to enforce this executive city order. He fails to mention that other than saying anyone observing this executive city ordinance being violated must report it or face consequences. Is he going to send the Mpls police department who have had their balls cut off because of Saint George to arrest ICE officers if they are gathering on city property? That would be interesting. This is an absolute joke and all he is doing is window dressing.

Now all the homeless and illegal bums will gather in these city owned lots as they already have been because they think that is their safe place now. Makes it easier for ICE.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/art...&bt_ts=1764892040900

Supreme Court allows Texas to use a congressional map favorable to Republicans in 2026

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Thursday came to the rescue of Texas Republicans, allowing next year’s elections to be held under the state’s congressional redistricting plan favorable to the GOP and pushed by President Donald Trump despite a lower-court ruling that the map likely discriminates on the basis of race.

With conservative justices in the majority, the court acted on an emergency request from Texas for quick action because qualifying in the new districts already has begun, with primary elections in March.

The Supreme Court’s order puts the 2-1 ruling blocking the map on hold at least until after the high court issues a final decision in the case. Justice Samuel Alito had previously temporarily blocked the order while the full court considered the Texas appeal.

The justices cast doubt on the lower-court finding that race played a role in the new map, saying in an unsigned statement that Texas lawmakers had “avowedly partisan goals.”

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the three liberal justices that her colleagues should not have intervened at this point. Doing so, she wrote, “ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral districts because of their race. And that result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution.”

The high court's vote “is a green light for there to be even more re-redistricting, and a strong message to lower courts to butt out,” Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California at Los Angeles law school, wrote on the Election Law Blog.

The justices have blocked past lower-court rulings in congressional redistricting cases, most recently in Alabama and Louisiana, that came several months before elections.

The Texas congressional map enacted last summer at Trump’s urging was engineered to give Republicans five additional House seats.

The effort to preserve a slim Republican majority in the House in next year’s elections touched off a nationwide redistricting battle.

Texas was the first state to meet Trump’s demands in what has become an expanding national battle over redistricting. Republicans drew the state’s new map to give the GOP five additional seats, and Missouri and North Carolina followed with new maps adding an additional Republican seat each. To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats there.

The redrawn maps are facing court challenges in California and Missouri. A three-judge panel allowed the new North Carolina map to be used in the 2026 elections.

The Trump administration is suing to block the new California maps, but it called for the Supreme Court to keep the redrawn Texas districts in place.

The justices are separately considering a case from Louisiana that could further limit race-based districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It’s unclear how the current round of redistricting would be affected by the outcome in the Louisiana case.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the Supreme Court's order "defended Texas’s fundamental right to draw a map that ensures we are represented by Republicans.” He called the redistricting law “the Big Beautiful Map.”

“Texas is paving the way as we take our country back, district by district, state by state,” Paxton said in a statement. “This map reflects the political climate of our state and is a massive win for Texas and every conservative who is tired of watching the left try to upend the political system with bogus lawsuits.”

cont...


https://www.theepochtimes.com/...2F5rPhCxgvs7lKHys%3D

Supreme Court Upholds Texas Election Map That Favors Republicans

Republicans currently have a tiny majority over Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered late on Dec. 4 that a redrawn election map expected to increase Republican representation in Texas’s U.S. House delegation remain in place.

The court’s new unsigned order in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Abbott was issued over the dissents of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the order. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined the concurrence.

On Nov. 21, the Supreme Court took action hours after Texas appealed a federal district court ruling striking down the election map passed earlier this year. Under the federal Voting Rights Act, the state is allowed to file an appeal directly with the Supreme Court, bypassing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Alito, who oversees urgent appeals from Texas, issued an administrative stay on that date, halting the lower court ruling. An administrative stay temporarily preserves the status quo while giving justices more time to consider a case.
Republicans currently enjoy a razor-thin majority over Democrats in the House of Representatives, and Texas Republicans currently hold 25 of the state’s U.S. House seats. Democrats hold 12 seats. Congressional elections are scheduled for Nov. 3, 2026.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas held 2–1 on Nov. 18 that the state may not use the new map because “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
In the federal district court’s majority opinion, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown said that “the Plaintiff Groups are likely to prove at trial that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
Gerrymandering refers to the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to benefit a particular party or constituency. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that race-based gerrymandering violates the U.S. Constitution but that redrawing district boundaries to boost partisan fortunes passes constitutional muster.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, who sat on the panel, filed a strongly worded dissenting opinion, describing the ruling as the “most blatant exercise of judicial activism” he has ever witnessed.
This is a developing story that will be updated.

Outstanding

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...GKr0blZ0VoEKpXj7w%3D

Appeals Court Temporarily Lifts Block on National Guard in DC

Three appeals court judges removed a block on deploying more than 2,000 National Guard members in the nation’s capital.

A federal appeals court lifted a block on President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington on Thursday.

Three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the Trump administration’s request to halt a previous judge’s order blocking the deployment.

The Trump administration responded to the decision, saying the president stands behind the use of troops in the capital.

“As we have always maintained, the President exercised his lawful authority to deploy the National Guard to DC. We look forward to ultimate vindication on this issue,” White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson told The Epoch Times.

Thursday’s decision will allow the appeals court to decide whether an extended pause is warranted as it considers the administration’s appeal of the lower court’s decision.

On Nov. 20, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled the National Guard deployment disrupted the capital’s ability to self-govern.

Trump declared a crime emergency in D.C. and deployed over 2,000 guard members in August to support local and federal law enforcement agencies.

The District of Columbia filed a lawsuit arguing the administration had exceeded its authority in deploying military forces for civil matters without the city’s request, and questioned the use of out-of-state troops.

In a statement Nov. 20, District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb, a Democrat, said it was time for the troops to “go home.”

“From the beginning, we made clear that the U.S. military should not be policing American citizens on American soil,” Schwalb said. “Normalizing the use of military troops for domestic law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent, where the President can disregard states’ independence and deploy troops wherever and whenever he wants—with no checks on his military power.”
Schwalb did not return a request for comment on the latest ruling.

The troops were expected to stay in the district through the end of February 2026.

Thursday’s written order by the court of appeals lifted an injunction that required the troops to leave the nation’s capital by Dec. 11.

The order allows Trump to continue the deployment, which has ramped up following a Nov. 26 shooting of two National Guard troops steps away from the White House.
Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died the day after the Nov. 26 attack. National Guardsman Andrew Wolfe, 24, was critically injured and remains hospitalized.
Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, who once worked with the CIA, is charged with first-degree murder and assault with the intent to kill, along with other charges.
Guard units have patrolled the National Mall, and have shown a presence in Metro transit stations and the district’s neighborhoods.

The guard’s operations in the capital have been coordinated by the Joint Task Force District of Columbia, which oversees units from the district’s own National Guard and from other states, including South Carolina, West Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, and South Dakota.

Hours after the Nov. 26 shooting, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth ordered 500 more troops to the district.
“This will only stiffen our resolve to make sure that we make Washington, D.C. safe and beautiful,” Hegseth said on Nov. 26.

Walz is gonna cry

Schumer was ridiculing DT about his perspective on affordability. Says he's a billionaire who's never been in a grocery store. Now he's too rich to understand normal Americans plight, but I remember during his first term the dims claimed DT wasn't really rich.

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:
Schumer was ridiculing DT about his perspective on affordability. Says he's a billionaire who's never been in a grocery store. Now he's too rich to understand normal Americans plight, but I remember during his first term the dims claimed DT wasn't really rich.

And my guess is that Schumer is a multi-millionaire who hasn't been in a grocery store in decades either.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

The "R" word! If you are too afraid of the word to use it you probably are one. He is truly retarded. I think he should debate Vance on the subject.