90 Miles From Tyranny

Thursday, October 15, 2020

The War On Western Civilization...

Trump On Biden Scandal: “This Is A Big Smoking Gun”; He’s “Blatantly Lying”

President slams Facebook and Twitter for censoring massive story

President Trump addressed the bombshell findings revealed by the New York post Thursday, which prompted Twitter and Facebook to initiate a massive coverup effort.

Minutes into his rally in Iowa, Trump declared that his rival Joe Biden “has been blatantly lying about his involvement in his son’s corrupt business dealings.”

“This is a big smoking gun,” the president said, adding “The newly uncovered emails reveal that a top executive from the highly questionable Ukrainian oil company — it’s an energy company — paid Hunter at least $50,000 a month, but it’s now looking like it could be $183,000 a month.”

Trump continued “The same energy executive even sent Hunter an email saying quote, ‘we urgently need your advice on how you can use your influence.’”

“In other words, Hunter was being paid for access to his vice president father who was specifically put in charge of Ukraine and Russia,” the President proclaimed.

Trump emphasized that the “emails show that Biden’s repeated claim that he has never spoken to Hunter about his business dealings were a complete...

So Satisfying!

8 Big Moments From Day 3 of Barrett’s Confirmation Hearings

On the third and final day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, senators revisited some issues covered the day before but also detoured into a president’s ability to pardon himself and the high court’s resolution of the 2000 presidential election.

Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee also had to wait out technical difficulties with the audio in the hearing room.

President Donald Trump announced Sept. 26 that he would nominate Barrett, a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.

Here are seven takeaways from Day 3 of the confirmation hearing.

1. Presidential Power

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., pressed Barrett on the limits of presidential power regarding pardons and the Supreme Court’s power to require a president to obey a court order.

Barrett referenced a founding document, Federalist 78, to talk about the constitutional limits of the judiciary.

“Courts have neither force nor will. In other words, we can’t do anything to enforce our own judgments,” Barrett said. “So, what I meant in the conversation with you is that as a matter of law, the Supreme Court may have the final word. But the Supreme Court lacks control over what happens after that. The Supreme Court and any federal court has no power, no force, and no will, so it relies on the other branches to react to its judgments accordingly.”

Leahy followed by asking: “Is a president who refuses to comply with a court order a threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances?”

Barrett, 48, answered by bringing up the high court’s unanimous 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education to end “separate but equal” racial segregation in public schools.

After the high court decided that case, Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus, a Democrat, used the state’s National Guard to prevent desegregation of schools in Little Rock in 1957. President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, federalized the National Guard and sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock to enforce federal law.

“The example of Brown is a perfect one in this instance because the Supreme Court in Brown, of course, held that segregation violated the [Constitution’s] Equal Protection Clause,” Barrett said. “That was the law. But as you know, there was resistance to that decision. As you know, it wasn’t until the National Guard came in and forced Gov. Faubus to allow desegregation that could happen, because the Supreme Court couldn’t do so itself.”

Leahy pressed her again on whether a president could disobey a high court order.

“As I said, the Supreme Court can’t control whether or not the president obeys,” Barrett responded. “Abraham Lincoln once disobeyed an order during the Civil War of a circuit court. So, a court can pronounce a law and issue a judgment, but it lacks control over how the political branches respond to it.”

Leahy went on to ask: “Would you agree no one is above the law?

Barrett responded, “I agree that no one is above the law.”

With that, Leahy asked: “Does a president have an absolute right to pardon himself for a crime? We heard this question after President Nixon’s impeachment.”

Barrett suggested that this could be a matter that goes before the Supreme Court and thus not something she could address.

“So far as I know, that question has never been litigated. That question has never arisen,” Barrett said. “That question may or may not arise. It’s one that calls for legal analysis for what the scope of the pardon power is. Because it would be opining on an open question when I haven’t gone through the judicial process to decide it, it’s not one in which I can offer a view on.”

Leahy replied: “I find your answers somewhat incompatible.”

2. Feinstein ‘Really Impressed’

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said she was “impressed” by an answer from Barrett.

A key attack from Democrats has been that Barrett’s confirmation would mean the end of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. That’s because a case called Texas v. California is heading to the Supreme Court.

Texas and other states assert that because Congress removed the law’s individual mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance, the rest of the law is unconstitutional. They note that the high court held in 2012 that the Obamacare law was constitutional because the individual mandate was a tax.

Earlier in the hearing, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., initially asked Barrett about the “doctrine of severability.”

Barrett said courts make a “presumption of severability” and consider the intent of the legislature.

Severability means that if one provision of a law passed by Congress is struck down by a court it doesn’t necessarily mean the entire law is struck down when that provision is severed.

Graham asked, “The doctrine of severability has a presumption to save the statute if possible, is that correct?”

Barrett affirmed it was.

Later, Feinstein followed up to ask Barrett to explain the meaning of the doctrine of severability again.

Barrett told Feinstein that severability tries not to undo the work of the elected branch of Congress.

“Severability strives to look at a statute as a whole and say, ‘Would the Congress have considered this provision so vital that, sort of [like] in a Jenga game, pulling it out, Congress wouldn’t want the statute anymore?’” Barrett said.

“I think, insofar as it tries to effectuate what Congress would have wanted, it’s the court and Congress working hand in hand,” the judge said.

This answer pleased Feinstein, who, as the committee’s ranking member, leads opposition to the nominee.

“Thank you. That’s quite a definition. I’m really impressed,” Feinstein said.

3. ‘I Have My Own Mind’

FBI Informant Was 'One Of The Most Active Leaders' Pushing 'Crackpot' Whitmer Kidnapping Plot: Defense

An FBI informant was "one of the most active leaders" in the alleged plot to kidnap Michigan Gov Gretchen Whitmer, according to a defense attorney for one of the accused.

From the Detroit Free Press:

There was no real plan to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, but only "military wannabes" who engaged in "big talk" and played with guns in the woods, defense lawyers argued in court Tuesday.

As one defense lawyer suggested, the case appears to be one of "big talk between crackpots," or "people who talk a lot ... but are never going to do anything."

"Have you ever dealt with big talkers?" defense attorney Scott Graham asked an FBI agent on cross examination, adding: "There's kind of a military-wanna-be theme that runs between the militias."

[...] Defense lawyers contend that there was no probable cause to arrest and charge the suspect, arguing, among other things, that the suspects had no operational plan to do anything, were engaged in all legal activities — including talking in encrypted group chats and practicing military exercises with lawfully owned guns — and that it was the informants and undercover agents who "pushed" others to do illegal things.

"One of the most active leaders was your informant," Graham said.

If this was another FBI frame-up job certainly it wouldn't be the first and it won't be the last.

The FBI's affidavit revealed they had multiple informants and undercover agents involved in this operation going all the way back to...

“A group is suing Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum and Tulsa Health Department Executive Director Bruce Dart, saying the city’s mask mandate is harmful to healthy people,” reports Activist Post. The group includes business owners and two doctors who “are asking the city to immediately repeal the mask mandate which was passed by city council last month.”

At a press conference, optometrist Robert Zoellner said:

“…the fear factor has got to step back. This idea that I don’t want to give you something that I don’t even know that I have is almost at the point of ridiculous. Let’s use some common sense.”

Dr. James Meehan, MD followed by warning that mask wearing has “well-known risks that have been well-studied and they’re not being discussed in the risk analysis.

“I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections. Reports coming from my colleagues, all over the world, are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise.

“Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly… in a non-sterile fashion… They’re becoming contaminated. They’re pulling them off of their car seat, off the rearview mirror, out of their pocket, from their countertop, and they’re reapplying a mask that should be worn fresh and sterile every single time.”

Dr. Meehan adds:

“New research is showing that cloth masks may be increasing the aerosolization of the SARS-COV-2 virus into the environment causing an increased transmission of the disease…”

In conclusion, Dr. Meehan states:

“In February and March we were told not to wear masks. What changed? The science didn’t change. The politics did. This is about compliance. It’s not about...