Good question right up front – Just what is the Republican Party and Ronna McDaniel doing to help their constituents? Has anyone heard one word of disgust over this unjust use of our legal system? Ronna has been a failure from day one and a big reason why GOP candidates haven’t fared well in recent elections, the RNC having lost touch with its current base while thinking all their old school flunky Rinos only deserve their support.
Most Republicans aren’t really any fans of Mitch, going forth as he is wont in helping the specious Dems at bay on more than one occasion on important issues. But his TDS, self-enrichment and disregard for GOP voters demonstrates routine abuse of his position. Ronna, therefor becomes completely inconsequential, while McCarthy is actually better than expected, even while not nearly removing all suspicion.
Jim Jordan on the other hand has become one of the good ones, and I’d love for anyone to explain how you could do better. It’s all mired in “crappola” and if you think the few good ones are worthy of derision for being outgunned, you’re not truly paying attention.
The “ministry of truth” however, will determine who can say what with such a movement, since any politician can be arrested for “lying” – all due to not having enough jails to hold them all!
Meanwhile, the afore-mentioned McRats Mitch, Ronna and Kevin are hiding in a closet hoping Trump would call it quits. Jim Jordan is busy with hearings to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin – the entire lot of them, as useless as pondscum. THAT!
Andrea Widburg, American Thinker: ‘Jonathan Turley spells out how the Trump indictment really is’ …
Every American’s speech is entitled to First Amendment protection. However, if the Biden administration has its way, that protection does not extend to Donald Trump. With his usual clarity and insight, law professor Jonathan Turley spells out just how foul the Trump indictment really is.
As always, when it comes to the latest Democrat “gotcha” against Trump, this one is stink and dangerous, explains Turley. Hidden behind the legal language and statutory citations is a straightforward effort to punish Trump for daring to speak his mind about the chicanery he (and half of the American voters) perceived in the 2020 election:
Trump was not charged with conspiracy to incite violence or insurrection. Rather, he was charged because he “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.”
In other words, Trump is being accused of challenging the Democrat establishment’s insistence that it won the election fair and square. Any dissenting views must not only be silenced but must be punished, both to keep Trump off the ballot and as a warning to others. [-]
[+] … Turley notes that the Democrats were protected when they went on and on about “Russia, Russia, Russia,” despite knowing that what they said was untrue. That’s because of the enormous latitude we give to political speech. The rules change for Trump, though:
Yet this indictment suggests that Trump engaged (and indeed still engages) in criminal conduct by insisting that the 2020 election was stolen. Presumably, it also follows that tens of millions of Americans holding that same view are also involved in spreading the same false claims underlying the indictment.
In this regard, note that a Texas rep has explicitly stated that those Republicans who agree with Trump “are getting dangerously close, in my opinion, to criminal culpability in and of themselves.”
Ultimately, even if one assumes solely for the sake of argument that Trump knew all along that he had lost, Turley explains that, under Supreme Court law, “it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies” when they are tied to political speech. Doing otherwise, said the Supreme Court,
[W]ould give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition. The mere potential for the exercise of that power casts a chill, a chill the First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of our freedom.
The United States Constitution, glorious though it is, is like Dorothy’s ruby slippers in the Wizard of Oz: it works only if the American people—and their government—believe in it. Once that belief is shattered, it’s just a pretty, old piece of paper. We are very close to being lost in a police-state version of Oz forever unless both an honest court and the American people slap down this kind of despotic overreach. [end]
Full link below….
As long as law schools are taught that our Constitution is a living breathing document subject to arbitrary interpretation — what good is it? Guess this is why too many members of government can place their hand on the Bible and pledge their allegiance to their country with impunity.
One suspects they don’t know a thing about that book they swear upon. This case against Trump is shaping up to be a dividing line for all who are products of the American legal profession. In this case, there will be shown us all only two types of American lawyers: those who seek to uncover truth, and those who seek to hide the truth. If American law schools taught the Bible as foundational to all American law, this would rarely rise as an issue.
As it is, there are many Supreme Court rulings that also indicate that one has not only the right to speak as one of the rights of free speech but one also has the right to listen as part of the right to free speech. Anyone who censors the speaker is also censoring the listener. All of us who have the right to listen to President Donald John Trump are having our rights to free speech trampled upon as well. How the Trump indictment really is. THAT!
And on that note, time for today’s MAGA Pill – Warrior-President Donald John Trump – MAGA! KAG!
- Andrea Widburg, American Thinker: Jonathan Turley spells out how the Trump indictment really is