Cool video of the Trump eclipse!!

Joey D
4/8/24

The Justice Department said Friday it unmasked “inconsistencies” in Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis’s use of federal grant funds, confirming whistleblower allegations.

Willis previously fired the whistleblower who alleged the Fulton County office mishandled $488,000 of federal grant money to pay for “swag,” computers, and travel.

The Justice Department did not provide any further details on the nature of Willis’s reporting “inconsistencies” on the $488,000 federal grant, which was earmarked for the creation of a Center for Youth Empowerment and Gang Prevention in Atlanta. The grant ended in September 2023, but the center never opened.

The Justice Department is coordinating with Willis’s office to fix the grant reporting “inconsistencies” amid an ongoing House Judiciary Committee investigation into Willis’s use of federal grant funds. Committee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) subpoenaed Willis in early February for records related to the $488,000 federal grant and the whistleblower allegations made by former Willis staffer Amanda Timpson, who was listed as the grant director until the district attorney abruptly fired her in January 2022.

Jordan threatened to hold Willis in contempt of Congress on March 14 after the district attorney responded to his subpoena with a “narrow set of documents” that had nothing to do with Timpson’s whistleblower allegations. Willis wrote in response that Jordan’s demands were “unreasonable and uncustomary” and suggested his investigation was an effort to derail her election interference case against former president Donald Trump.

In February, Breitbart News reported the Biden administration has a Democrat operative inside a Fulton County office to target Trump. If the Biden administration planted the operative, as the sources say, it would present a strong argument that the administration interfered in the 2024 presidential election.

https://www.breitbart.com/2024...ral-grant-funds-use/

^^^^^
Re: The Justice Department is coordinating with Willis’s office to fix the grant reporting “inconsistencies”

Yeah, the fix is in.

Trump Produces Signed Statement from Stormy Daniels: ‘I Am Denying This Affair Because It Never Happened’

https://evol.news/news/trump-p..._campaign=Newsletter

President Donald Trump has shared a signed statement from Stormy Daniels in which she denies receiving “hush money” or ever being involved in an “affair.”

Trump shared the documents on Truth Social on Wednesday.

“Look what was just found!” Trump wrote in the post alongside the statement.

“Will the fake news report it?”

The document is titled “Official Statement of Stormy Daniels” with a date of January 30, 2018.

In the statement, Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, denies ever having sexual relations with Trump or receiving any “hush money” from the 45th president.

She goes on to assert that she isn’t denying the affair because she was paid to but “because it never happened.”

“Over the past few weeks I have been asked countless times to comment on reports of an alleged sexual relationship I had with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago,” the statement from Daniels says.

“The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence in 2006, 20011 [sic], 2016, 2017 and now again in 2018.

“I am not denying this affair because I was paid ‘hush money’ as has been reported in overseas-owned tabloids.

How Taxpayers Will Heavily Subsidize Democrat Boots On The Ground This Election

Authored by Ben Weingarten via RealClear Wire,

Progressives are using legal loopholes and the power of the federal government to maximize Democrat votes in the 2024 election at taxpayers’ expense, RealClearInvestigations has found.

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...oots-ground-election

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...cle-nativemenubutton

DC National Guard whistleblowers to say they WERE ready to be deployed on January 6 on Trump's orders hours but were held back by the Pentagon

Whistleblowers from the Washington D.C. National Guard will tell Congress that Donald Trump did want them deployed during the Capitol riot and the Army delayed telling them to mobilize in a bombshell hearing next week.

DailyMail.com can exclusively reveal that at least three officers will appear Wednesday before a House subcommittee to claim their stories were also ignored by the Democrat-led January 6 committee, because it didn't fit their narrative.

The hearing will aim to further prove that Acting Defense Secretary at the time Christopher Miller did give advance approval of D.C. National Guard deployment at the direction of then-President Donald Trump.

A person familiar with the review by the House Administration Committee's Oversight Subcommittee said the whistleblowers will provide testimony that then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy delayed by at least two hours providing official notice to D.C. National Guard Commander William Walker to deploy troops to the Capitol.

Instead of getting to the bottom of the breakdown in communication and focusing on improving Military preparedness for future incidents, the witnesses feel the January 6 panel was solely focused on pinning blame for the events that day on Trump.

The officers, who were with Walker the day of the Capitol riot, will detail how they were on buses in full tactical gear for hours waiting for the go-ahead from the Army.

McCarthy has stated under oath that he did give a timely order for deployment of the D.C. National Guard – but Walker's troops said they found out about mobilization during a press conference, which led to a three-hour-and-19-minute delay of forces arriving at the Capitol.

Some suggest that McCarthy was vying for a spot in President Joe Biden's incoming administration and didn't like the optics of it looking like the Army, under his command, was trying to interfere or inhibit certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

The hearing on Wednesday is titled 'Three Years Later: D.C. National Guard Whistleblowers Speak Out on January 6 Delay' and aims to examine whether Trump was at fault for the delay in National Guard deployment.

Additionally, the whistleblowers will reveal how the January 6 Committee did not want to hear their testimony because it corroborated Trump and his allies' claims that the former president did authorize the National Guard days in advance to respond to any violence or unrest on January 6, 2021.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) is chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, which is tasked with reviewing the January 6 Committee's investigation into the Capitol riot.

Last month, Loudermilk released a transcript of a never-before-seen interview with Tony Ornato, the man in charge of Trump's security detail on January 6, 2021. In the interview with the panel, Ornato confirmed that Trump did authorize the National Guard for mobilization and deployment to D.C. that day.

Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund and DC National Guard leader Maj. Gen. Walker said that Army Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt (ret.), who was Army Staff Director at the time of the riot, delayed or ignored Sund's request for National Guard support.

They accused Piatt of saying: 'I don't like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background.'

The D.c. National Guard whistleblowers will be able during Wednesday's hearing to corroborate this despite Piatt testifying under oath that he never mentioned optics.

Joey D
4/15/24

https://www.breitbart.com/clip...oney-case-is-absurd/

Turley said, “Well, the more cases against Trump, the less justice we receive as a people. You know, the opponents of Trump would have been far better off with just one case, the Mar-a-Lago case. That’s based on real law, real precedent, and one can disagree with the interpretations. But it’s not a reach in the sense of this case.”

He continued, “This case is, creating something, it’s creating a criminal code just for Trump. You know, you have a misdemeanor whose time has expired, the statute limitations ran out, and it was revived in this rather curious way. He’s effectively arguing that Trump was filing false business records through his counsel to hide a federal crime. But it isn’t a federal crime, this wasn’t a campaign contribution. None of that appears to matter, and that’s why a lot of us are looking at this and recoiling. This is not how the law is supposed to be.”

Turley added, “New Yorkers appear to like it this way. They elected James, who ran on bagging Trump for anything, didn’t even mention what. And they now are lionizing this district attorney who’s putting together what many of us consider to be an absurd indictment.”

Meathead hasn't changed one iota in 50 years. Still a commie.

quote:

Meathead hasn't changed one iota in 50 years.

Usually I can separate an actor from his roles and just look at the man. But in his case, this role defines him as a man.

Katie Couric blames 'anti-intellectualism,' 'class resentment' driving Trump's MAGA voters 'That is a huge problem that we have to address,' Couric told Bill Maher on Sunday


“The socio-economic disparities are a lot and class resentment is a lot and anti-intellectualism and elitism is what is driving many of these anti-establishment [people] — which are Trump voters — so, I think that is a huge problem that we have to address,” Couric explained to Maher, referring to the MAGA movement that ...14 hours ago

Link

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
..a huge problem that we have to address...

"we"?

Couric shows her ass, it's what she does.

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
..a huge problem that we have to address...

"we"?

Couric shows her ass, it's what she does.

I don't know who "we" are, since I'm a anti in-tie-lect'y'all... being socio-e-con'micly dis-party'd n all....

^^^^ related

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margo...ts-glorious-n4928234

On Tuesday, oral arguments commenced in the case of Fischer vs. United States, scrutinizing the legitimacy of felony charges of obstructing an official proceeding against individuals involved in the January 6 United States Capitol riot. The court's ruling will carry significant weight, as it could potentially influence the fate of hundreds of defendants from the January 6 riot and potentially undermine certain federal charges against Donald Trump.

Currently, the conservative wing of the court has expressed doubt regarding the government's case, which U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is making. Notably, Justice Neil Gorsuch posed a question that was epic, to put it mildly.

Specifically, he inquired whether Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who infamously pulled a fire alarm to delay a House vote, could face charges under the same statute.

"What does that mean for the breadth of this statute?" Gorsuch asked. "Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify? Would a heckler at today's audience qualify, or a heckler at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?"

"There are multiple elements of the statute that may not be satisfied by those hypotheticals," insisted Prelogar. "It relates to the point I was going to make to the chief justice about the breadth of the statute. These built-in limitations are things that I think would potentially suggest that many of those things wouldn't be something the government can charge as 1512(c)(2)."

She added, "It would include the fact that the actus reus does require obstruction, which we understand to be meaningful interference. That means if you have some minor disruption or delay or some minimal outburst—"

"So my outburst requires the court to reconvene after the proceeding has been brought back into line, or the pulling of the fire alarm, the vote has to be rescheduled, or the protest outside of the courthouse makes it inaccessible for a period of time," Gorsuch interjected. "Are those all federal felonies subject to 20 years in prison?"

Of course, you can see where this is going. It's not surprising that the Biden administration's position was that pulling a fire alarm to delay a House vote wouldn't be prosecuted under the same statute because it chose not to prosecute Bowman.

I love the way that Gorsuch used Bowman as an example, yet the conservative wing of the court continued to own Prelogar. Picking up with Gorsuch left off, Justice Samuel Alito gave more examples that Prelogar argued would be difficult for the government to prove obstruction of an official proceeding, insisting that "the term 'obstruct' on its face denotes a meaningful interference with the proceeding," to which, Alito pointed out that 1512 (c)(2) "doesn't refer just to obstruct, it says 'obstructs, influences, or impedes.' Impedes is something less than obstructs."

No matter what example justices offered, including pro-Palestinian protesters blocking traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge on Monday, or the hypothetical of protesters blocking traffic from Virginia to Washington, D.C., the Biden administration's position that none of these would meet the same requirement.

Curious, isn't it?

I wonder what it was like for Prelogar to stand there as Gorsuch and Alito destroyed her case right before her eyes.

audio of Gorsuch at link

Everything is always in mid-air.

I wish we could get something definitive in all of this. Everything is always just right around the corner.

My patience grows thin and I know I am far from alone. November is taking fucking forever to get here.