Speaker Johnson And The DC Meltdown
Click on the headline to read the full story from
After weeks of rancor and chaos, the US House finally has a new Speaker, Louisiana Republican Mike Johnson. Conservatives are cheering and Democrats are wailing. But will anything fundamentally change in DC? Also today: Why was Ron Paul in DC during the Speaker vote? We will reveal in today's Report. Watch today's program: Speaker Johnson And The DC Meltdown Click on the headline to read the full story from
0 Comments
Can the president fight any war he wishes? Can Congress fund any war it chooses? Are there constitutional and legal requirements that must first be met before war is waged? Can the United States legally attack an ally? These questions should be critical to a public debate over the US military involvement in Ukraine and the Middle East. Sadly, there has been no great debate. The media are mouthing what the CIA is telling them, and only a few websites and podcasts -- my own, “Judging Freedom” on YouTube, among them -- are challenging the government’s reckless, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional wars. Here is the backstory. All power in the federal government comes from the Constitution and from no other source. Congress, however, has managed to extend its reach beyond the confines of the Constitution domestically by spending money in areas that it cannot regulate and in foreign policy by looking the other way when presidents initiate military violence. Under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war on a nation or group. The last time it did so was to initiate American involvement in World War II. But Congress has given away limited authority to presidents and permitted them to fight undeclared wars, such as President George W. Bush’s disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Congress cannot legally declare war on Russia or Gaza, since there is no militarily grounded reason for doing so. Neither Russia nor Gaza poses any threat to American national security. Congress not only has not declared war on Russia; it has not authorized the use of American military force against it. Yet, it has given President Joe Biden a blank check for $113 billion and authorized him to give cash and military equipment to Ukraine, however he sees fit. He has promised to continue giving Ukraine whatever it needs for “as long as it takes.” As long as it takes to do what? He cannot answer that because he has no clear military objective. Eliminating Russian troops from eastern Ukraine and Crimea or Russian President Vladimir Putin from office are not realistically attainable military goals. Congress has only authorized cash and weapons to be sent to Ukraine, but Biden has sent troops as well. As of this writing, Congress has not authorized any military assistance to Israel, yet Biden has sent 2,000 Marines to await his orders on an aircraft carrier in the eastern Mediterranean, and he has put special forces on the ground in Gaza. The US involvement in Vietnam began the same way: no declaration of war, no authorization for the use of military force, yet a gradual presidentially ordered buildup of American troops as advisers and instructors, and then a congressionally supported war that saw half a million American troops deployed, 10% of whom came home in body bags. We don’t know how many American troops are in Ukraine, as they are out of uniform and their whereabouts a secret. We do know that they are involved in hostilities, since much of the hardware that Biden has sent requires American know-how to operate and maintain. And some of the weaponry has American troops actually targeting Russian forces and pulling the triggers. Are American soldiers killing Russian soldiers? Yes. Are they helping to kill civilian residents of Gaza? Yes. Has any of this been authorized by Congress? No. Now back to the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution, which requires presidential notification to Congress of the use of American military force, is unconstitutional because it consists of Congress giving away one of its core functions -- declaring war. The Supreme Court has characterized delegating away core functions as violative of the separation of powers. Stated differently, Congress cannot constitutionally authorize or permit the president to use the military in a non-defensive manner. Nevertheless, Biden has not informed Congress of his intentions to use American troops violently. Yet, he has used the Navy and the CIA to attack Germany by destroying the Nord Stream Pipeline; he has sent soldiers out of uniform to Ukraine; and he has dispatched Army, Navy and Marine personnel to wartime Israel. Don’t be surprised if Biden gives War Powers Act notice secretly to the Gang of Eight. The Gang of Eight is the Congress within the Congress. It consists of the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate with which the president legally shares secrets. Just as Congress cannot delegate away its war-making powers to the president, it cannot delegate them away to the Gang of Eight. The concept of the Gang of Eight is antithetical to democratic values. Informing them of whatever violence the president is up to is done under an oath of secrecy. What kind of democracy operates and kills in secret and disenfranchises 95% of its elected federal representatives? The various treaties to which the US is a party limit its war-making to that which is defensive, proportional and reasonable. So, if a foreign power is about to strike -- like on 9/11, while the government slept -- the president can strike first in order to protect the US Beyond an imminent attack, the basis for war must be real, the adversary’s anti-US military behavior must be grave, the objective of war must be clear and attainable, and the means must be proportionate to the threat. Has the Russian military threatened the US? No. Have the Palestinian people? No. What grave acts of aggression has either committed or threatened against the US? None. Do we actually repose the Constitution into the hands of those who ignore it? Does the Congress uphold the Constitution? Does the president? The answers are obvious. It is also obvious that Joe Biden loves war and wants to run for reelection as a wartime president. And he seems to be getting his way. To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com. COPYRIGHT 2023 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM Biden, War and the Constitution Click on the headline to read the full story from NewsGuard, a company which claims to rate media outlets' level of 'trustworthiness' and therefore has a meaningful influence over ad revenue, has been sued along with the Biden administration by Consortium News, which also named the Pentagon's Cyber Command for "contracting with NewsGuard to identify, report and abridge the speech of American media organizations that dissent from US official positions on foreign policy." According to the complaint, NewsGuard is "acting jointly or in concert with the United States to coerce news organizations to alter viewpoints" regarding Ukraine, Russia and Syria, and has impsed a form of "censorship and repression of views" that diverge from US policies and those of its allies, the complaint says. Consortium also notes that NewsGuard has branded the entirety of Consortium News' 20,000+ articles as 'unreliable' based on just six examples they took issue with (which is the exact same thing they do with ZeroHedge and other independent media). NewsGuard uses its software to tag targeted news sites, including all 20,000+ Consortium News articles an videos published since 1995, with warnings to "proceed with caution," telling NewsGuard subscribers that Consortium News produces "disinformation," "false content" and is an "anti-US" media organization, even though NewsGuard only took issue with a total of six CN articles and none of its videos. Last week former Trump administration official Mike Benz noted on X that Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales is an adviser to NewsGuard, and that the nanny organization was "knee deep in a plot to get [governments] to bankrupt alternative news. NewsGuard worked [with the] EU on new disinformation code. Its biz model has ‘disinformation compliance’ services [with the] censorship laws it promotes."
In another X thread, Elon Musk called Newsguard a "scam" after they gave political commentator Tim Pool a strike "because we ran 5 stories out of nearly 5,000 that quoted [former President Donald] Trump." Acording to Uncover DC, NewsGuard has contracts with the DoD, WHO, Pfizer, Microsoft & AFT. Co-CEOs Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz claim it is the “librarian for the internet.” Set up specifically to rate online journalistic integrity, Brill states NewsGuard provides services that “explain to people something about the reliability and trustworthiness and background of those who are feeding them the news.” Eric Effron is the organization’s Editorial Director. And as the Epoch Times noted in August, NewsGuard presents itself as objective and nonpartisan. Its ratings, the company says, measure media quality on nine criteria, including transparency of authorship and ownership and adherence to standard editorial practice, such as issuing corrections and labeling opinion pieces. In practice, however, most of the score boils down to whether the media present content that, in NewsGuard’s opinion, is truthful. The first criterion specifically looks at whether the target repeatedly publishes false claims. Another examines whether it publishes news “responsibly.” But failing the first one means failing the second one, NewsGuard explains on its website. Yet another criterion is whether the target uses accurate headlines. Again, if the headline says something NewsGuard considers to be untrue, that counts as a failure. Another criterion looks for a policy of regularly correcting errors—or what NewsGuard considers to be errors. Together, these four criteria add up to more than 60 points of the 100-point score. Even if NewsGuard can’t find anything to dispute, it can still dock points if the target doesn’t sufficiently represent opinions the company would like to see. Such content providers “egregiously cherry pick facts or stories to advance opinions,” it argues. Meanwhile, at least 60 points are needed for NewsGuard to issue its “credible” rating. This methodology becomes particularly problematic when NewsGuard itself is wrong on the facts. For example, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the company considered false the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China. If a news outlet with a perfect score responsibly reported on the extensive circumstantial evidence indicating a lab leak, it ran the risk of NewsGuard decimating its score and falsely labelling it an “unreliable” source that “severely violates basic journalistic standards.” The COVID-19 origins issue was a rare case in which NewsGuard eventually issued a correction, though it only went as far as saying that the lab leak hypothesis couldn’t be completely ruled out. Reprinted with permission from ZeroHedge. NewsGuard & US Govt. Sued By Consortium News; Musk Slams 'Scam' Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute The prognosis of “war fatigue” on the part of the United States and its allies in the proxy war in Ukraine was greatly exaggerated. On the contrary, the war is acquiring a new swagger. The Biden Administration is riding a tiger and a dismount is fraught with the danger of being devoured by the beastly consequences of defeat in the war, which could only lead to the discredit of trans-atlanticism and the disintegration of NATO, and spell the doom for US’ global hegemony. Biden’s formal address to the nation from the Oval Office on Thursday can only be seen as the launch of a new phase of the Ukraine war carrying forward the the demonising of Putin to a new level, Biden weaves together a new narrative claiming that Hamas and the Russian leader both want to “completely annihilate a neighbouring democracy — completely annihilate it.” The bedrock of Biden’s argument was that resolute support of US allies is essential for preserving American primacy in the world. The main plot was that the hybrid war in Ukraine will continue so long as Biden remains in office in the White House. It has morphed into a “forever war”. Biden called Ukraine President Vladimir Zelensky before making his speech. Analysts would have us believe that Europe is increasingly disenchanted with the war. But Poland, a major frontline state, has just voted to power a centrist government that is cause for celebration in Kiev (and Washington). In Britain too, a similar outcome is to be expected — only that it will be Tweedledum replacing Tweedledee, two rotund little men of the Deep State who are identical except that they are left-right reversals of each other. Make no mistake that the Joint Statement after the US-EU summit in Washington on October 20 amounts to a resounding victory for the Biden Administration as the EU agreed with the US on “unwavering” military support to Ukraine; demand that Russia should “end its brutal war and withdraw its military forces and proxies and military equipment immediately, completely, and unconditionally from the entire internationally recognised territory of Ukraine”; the imperative of restoration of “internationally recognised borders” in any peace settlement; forcing Russia to “bear the legal consequences of all its internationally wrongful acts” against Ukraine; further deepening of “joint work to undermine Russia’s ability to wage its war, and maintain and expand its defence industrial base and capacity”, and so on. There is no sign of a potential wobbling in the steadfastness of Europe’s military support to Ukraine, either. The most recent example is Sweden where, as in other Nordic countries and across the Baltic states, geographical proximity to Russia has heightened security fears, and there is little sign of any wavering. Politico reported on Tuesday that Sweden’s Defense Minister Pål Jonson had instructed the country’s military leadership to examine the potential impact of providing various types of support to Ukraine’s fighter-jet capability, including Gripen planes. The military is to report back to Jonson by November 6. This followed announcements by Sweden’s European neighbours Norway, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands that they planned to send Lockheed Martin F-16 jets to Kiev. The expert opinion is that even a limited number of Gripen could meaningfully help Ukraine’s efforts to control its airspace, and is seen as relatively cheap and easy to maintain jet that can operate from shorter, narrower runways, including improvised landing strips on straight stretches of highways, thus reducing the risk of aircraft congregating at a larger base and being destroyed by a single enemy attack. As for the US, now we know that the Biden Administration was dissimulating as regards the ATACMS missiles, whereas, it had already surreptitiously equipped Kiev’s forces with that system. Furthermore, encouraged by the success of Kiev’s devastating attack on the Russian-controlled airfield attacks in Beryansk and Luhansk on Tuesday by using ATACMS (which reportedly destroyed multiple Russian helicopters, an ammunition dump, and an air defence system), the Biden Administration is now considering supply of an advanced version of the missile that can fire twice (190 miles) as far as the ones Ukraine just received (100 miles only). Certainly, there is no weakening of Biden’s resolve. In fact, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan brazenly disclosed on Friday in a special White House briefing that Washington has “contracted for certain types of weapons systems that have yet to be delivered because they’re still in production.” Plainly out, the Biden Administration considers it possible to hand over weapons and military vehicles to Ukraine that have never been shipped before. “The President has the discretion based on circumstances of the conflict, the situation on the ground, consultations with allies to make determinations about whether he will provide weapons systems to Ukraine that we have not previously provided,” Sullivan noted. He then went on to explain that the US has “contracted for certain types of weapons systems that have yet to be delivered because they’re still in production. We expect them to be delivered in the coming months.” Yet another flawed assumption has been that within the US Congress, a groundswell of opinion is building that would make it increasingly difficult for the Biden Administration to get approval for military aid to Ukraine in an election year. But, as luck would have it, Biden, who is an immensely experienced politician in navigating challenging legislations, has found an ingenious way. Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy put it nicely, “They’re intentionally combining the debates around Ukraine, Israel, & our border to ram through the $61BN for Ukraine that otherwise would have never passed.” According to White House documents, the request for the fiscal year 2024 proposes to allocate over $61.4 billion for Ukraine and over $14.3 billion for Israel. Sullivan called the Biden administration’s latest budget request as coming “amid a global inflection point” following the Hamas attack on Israel “and as the people of Ukraine continue to fight every day for their freedom and independence against Russian brutality.” He turned the focus on Biden’s new narrative that “the outcome of these fights for democracy against terrorism and tyranny are vital to the safety and security of the American people.” Who can say now that what happens in Ukraine, which is 10000 kms away, does not concern the United States? Biden began his speech on Thursday on a Churchillian note: “We’re facing an inflection point in history — one of those moments where the decisions we make today are going to determine the future for decades to come. That’s what I’d like to talk with you about tonight.” He went on to say, “American leadership is what holds the world together. American alliances are what keep us, America, safe. American values are what make us a partner that other nations want to work with. To put all that at risk if we walk away from Ukraine, if we turn our backs on Israel, it’s just not worth it.” So, Ukraine war is no longer about the Westphalian principle of national sovereignty and the UN Charter — or even about this being not an era of wars. It is actually about American leadership, American alliances, American values — plainly put, hegemony, NATO, exceptionalism. Reprinted with permission from Indian Punchline. Biden Gives Booster Dose to the Faltering Ukraine War Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute
The Biden Administration is demanding that Congress authorize a massive $105 billion to continue the war on Russia, to join Israel's war on Gaza, and to irritate China with weapons to Taiwan. Is this election season...or world war three? Also today: Illinois Governor is annoyed that Texas keeps sending him illegal immigrants. Will it spoil the Democratic Convention in Chicago? Watch today's Liberty Report: Biden: 'Give Me $105 Billion For Three Front War!' Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute Below is my column in The Hill on the recent discovery of a $200,000 payment to Joe Biden from his brother James Biden. The investigation into the massive influence peddling operation of the Bidens has revealed a consistent pattern of corruption. Frank, James, and Hunter all were in financial distress at different points with few discernible skills or success to offer the market. What they had was access to Joe Biden and all three are accused of cashing in on that access. Few deny that the Bidens engaged in open influence peddling. It is also undeniable that Joe Biden knew that they were influence peddling given the coverage and contacts over the years. Now, the House is pursuing the personal financial records of the Bidens after a taunting invitation of Joe Biden to show him the money. Here is the column: “Where’s the money?” That laughing quip from President Joe Biden was his surprising reaction to the disclosure that a trusted FBI informant had conveyed an alleged bribe worth millions, paid to Joe Biden by a Ukrainian businessman. Biden seemed almost to morph into the Cuba Gooding Jr. character in “Jerry Maguire,” getting Tom Cruise’s character to chant “show me the money” over and over again. Much like in the movie, the pundits and politicians picked up the refrain, insisting that nothing matters unless critics can show a direct payment to Jill or Joe Biden among the millions sent to Biden family members. At the same time, they opposed any investigation by the House. Now, the House Oversight Committee committee has released evidence of one such transfer that might even satisfy Cuba Gooding, Jr. The payment occurred in 2018, after the president’s brother, James Biden, received $200,000 from a company called Americore. James has long been criticized for raw influence peddling, and Americore was one of the companies where he had reportedly suggested access to sell to his brother. On March 1, 2018, Americore wired James the money to his personal rather than his business account. On the very same day, James wrote a check in that same amount to the personal bank account of his brother Joe, who had left office as Vice President and was widely discussed as a possible candidate for the presidency. James listed the money as a “loan repayment.” “Loans” have long been a source of controversy with the Bidens. IRS whistleblowers, for example, detailed how Hunter took massive payments from corrupt foreign sources and listed them as “loans,” despite no evidence of repayment or any standard loan agreement. He allegedly neither paid them back nor paid taxes on the money. Even if Joe Biden did loan almost a quarter of a million dollars to his brother, it would raise concerns over whether this disbursement came while he was vice president. The payments could have given Joe Biden an interest in not just the influence peddling of his brother but also the viability of this company. The White House has insisted that it was a loan to his brother that was repaid. But if there is no evidence of an actual loan, it would constitute a payment from an influence-seekling company to Joe Biden. At a minimum, the payment shows the fluidity of the accounts and finances of the Biden influence-peddling operation. While I have long criticized influence peddling by both Republicans and Democrats for decades, the Bidens constitute a class to themselves. The House committees have now traced millions of dollars passing through a labyrinth of shell companies and accounts to Biden family members, even grandchildren. This operation has become undeniable in recent months. Devan Archer admitted under oath that they were selling the “Biden Brand” and suggested that these companies were seeking influence and access to Joe Biden. While the media long dismissed this corruption scandal, it recently adopted a final line of defense that acknowledged that Hunter and his associates were selling influence, but it was a mere “illusion” of influence. That is why the president and his allies in the media began to channel Cuba Gooding Jr. It is important to note that it is not necessary for Joe Biden to directly receive money to constitute either a crime or an impeachable offense. As I stated in my testimony at the first Biden impeachment hearing, payments to Joe Biden’s family would be considered a “benefit” to him under standard criminal case law. Nevertheless, Biden’s taunt to show him the money would ordinarily send the media into a frenzy — much like Gary Hart’s invitation for reporters to follow him to see if he was philanderer. They followed him directly to a ship called “Monkey Business,” and that ended with a career-ending photo of Hart with Donna Rice on his lap. Few in the media were eager to follow the money after Joe’s taunt for the very reason that they were eager to follow Hart — they are fairly certain what they would find. There have long been allegations of cross-benefits and payments involving Joe Biden. That includes a deal with the Chinese to pay for an expensive office for the use of Joe and Jill Biden, as well as use of shared accounts and credit cards (including one card used by Hunter to pay for a prostitute). There were also references to taxes and house costs being paid out of these accounts for Joe and Jill Biden. Indeed, Hunter Biden complained that he was being forced to fork out half of his earnings to his father. That brings us back to the latest transfer. At a minimum, the payments show that Joe Biden was aware that his brothers and his son were in dire need of funds throughout these years. Frank Biden, the president’s younger brother, evaded efforts to force him to pay damages for his involvement in a reckless driving death in California. The surviving daughters of the victim in that crash wrote repeatedly to then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) to ask for his help in getting Frank to accept responsibility and pay up. Just before running for Vice President, Biden coolly responded: “As you are aware…Frank has no assets with which to satisfy the judgment. The senator regrets that this is where matters stand and that he cannot be more helpful.” In Hunter’s case, he was so financially desperate that he threatened a Chinese figure to send him money or else his father would take action. In one message, Hunter told a Chinese businessman that his father was sitting next to him to make sure the payment came through. Hunter’s financial woes were so bad that James was dispatched (after allegedly speaking with Joe Biden) to offer Hunter a “safe harbor” to avoid disaster. Now Joe Biden is claiming that he had to give James almost a quarter of a million dollars. During this entire period, there was a steady stream of coverage about the influence peddling of James, Frank, and Hunter Biden. According to the Oversight Committee, it now appears that James received $600,000 in loans from Americore despite the company’s own financial struggles. The evidence of money transferred from one of these companies through James to Joe Biden’s personal accounts will likely produce one immediate change: the media is likely to move the goal posts yet again. Of course, influence-peddling is itself corrupt, and benefits to one’s family are already sufficient for criminal charges (including as with the charges brought against Sen. Bob Menendez). However, now, even money received by Joe and Jill Biden will be deemed insufficient to justify further investigation. Now, they will argue, there must be a money trail directly from one of the companies, preferably marked down on the books as a “bribe” and not as a “loan repayment.” And even pictures of Joe sitting with Hunter’s clients in restaurants and offices will be insufficient to establish knowledge or involvement. When it comes to the Biden “Monkey Business,” even a picture of a Burisma executive on the president’s lap would not do. The new demand will be somewhere between an envelope of cash and an outright confession. Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org. The President’s Taunt to Show Him the Money May Have Just Backfired Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute
President Joe Biden announced last week that the United States would be funding – and possibly fighting - three wars in three different parts of the world at the same time. It is an ambitious foreign policy for a president who doesn’t even seem to be able to express a coherent thought without the help of a teleprompter.
Nearly every word of Biden’s speech was untrue, including the preposterous suggestion that “American leadership is what holds the world together. American alliances are what keep us, America, safe.” US interventionism in Ukraine for over ten years and in the Middle East for decades has brought those two regions to the brink of an explosion unlike anything seen before. And if that is not enough, Biden’s neocons are also determined to take us to war with China over Taiwan. The world is literally falling apart in front of us as Biden claims we are the only thing holding it together! After a brutal attack on Israel by Hamas earlier this month, Israel declared war not just on the terrorists who attacked its territory, but on the entire population of Gaza itself. Israel’s policy of collective punishment - razing Gaza to the ground - has inflamed Muslims from the Middle East to Asia to Western capitals. The anger rages more fiercely than we have seen in decades, perhaps since the founding of Israel in 1948. Yet instead of trying to help facilitate a ceasefire and a peaceful solution, Biden has poured gasoline onto the fire, sending two US carrier groups and at least 15,000 troops, while threatening war on Lebanon, Iran, and Syria if they intervene in Israel’s war on the Palestinians. What might Russia do if the US attacks Russian forces in Syria or Russia's allies in Tehran? Biden also repeated the line that “Israel has the right to defend itself.” While that may be true, it is not Israel defending itself. It’s the US government intervening to defend Israel. And as the entire Muslim world rages against Israel over the destruction of Gaza, how do we think they will feel about us as the financiers and facilitators of that destruction? By dragging the United States into this war, President Biden has planted the seeds of innumerable 9/11-style blowback attacks on the US. Yet he has the audacity to claim that all of this is keeping us safe. Recent polls show that most Americans disagree with Biden. A CBS/YouGov poll taken last week shows that the majority of Americans oppose sending weapons to Israel. His Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen assured us that “we can afford” to finance two wars because the US economy is doing “exceptionally well.” Maybe the American people know something Yellen and the elites do not. As Biden demands another $105 billion to fund the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Taiwan, his speech seemed to have a touch of campaign rhetoric in it. “I’m told I was the first American [president] to enter a warzone not controlled by the United States military since President Lincoln,” he said in his speech. The statement is blatantly false, but he must believe it gives him an air of bravado. They say that it is advantageous to be seen as a “wartime president” when elections roll around, but Joe Biden may have miscalculated the level of support he will get for being a “World-War-Three-time president.” Biden Election Strategy: ‘Let’s Fight Three Wars at Once!’ Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute Below is my column in The Hill on the imposition of a gag order on former President Donald Trump by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Despite my long-standing criticism of Trump’s personal attacks on judges and critics, this gag order should be curtailed or struck down on appeal. While the odds tend to favor the lower court in such orders, there is ample reason to object to the scope and language of the order. The ill-defined bar on criticizing the prosecution or witnesses (including one of Trump’s opponents in this election) raises serious free speech concerns. It is also unlikely to have any appreciable impact on the heated public debate over this and other prosecutions of the presidential candidate. Much of this campaign will focus on the alleged weaponization of the criminal justice system. While Trump is still allowed to criticize the case generally, the vague order cuts too deeply into his right to criticize the prosecutor, the judge, and witnesses in the case in this election. Here is the column: The imposition of a gag order on former President Donald Trump was overwhelmingly applauded by pundits and press alike. Journalists described the order from US District Judge Tanya Chutkan as “narrow” and “limited.” Most of them lionized Chutkan as an “unflinching” and “no-nonsense” judge who would not tolerate Trump’s penchant for personal attacks and reckless rhetoric. However, this order should concern everyone who values freedom of speech. While the odds may favor Chutkan on appeal, this order should be overturned as overbroad and dangerous. For years, many of us have criticized Trump for his personal attacks on judges and opponents alike. Undeterred, Trump has continued such inflammatory attacks on “deranged” Special Counsel Jack Smith and the “biased, Trump-hating Judge” Chutkan. Smith has pushed aggressively for a gag order, even though one of the major issues in Trump’s campaign is whether the Biden Administration has weaponized the criminal justice system against him and other Republicans. This week, Chutkan issued a partial gag order and stressed that she will not allow Trump to conduct a “smear campaign” in which he seeks to “vilify and implicitly encourage violence against public servants who are simply doing their jobs.” She stressed that “no other criminal defendant would be allowed to do so, and I’m not going to allow it in this case.” Chutkan reflects this trend in stating categorically that these are the limits that must be imposed regardless of the defendant. These orders come at a great cost — limiting both parties and counsels in raising objections to alleged abuses of the government. The First Amendment was written in the aftermath of such abuses, including the infamous prosecution of publisher John Peter Zenger 290 years ago in 1733. Some polls show that a majority now believe the Trump prosecutions are “politically motivated.” Tens of millions oppose the prosecutions, and this will be the single most-discussed issue of the campaign. Yet, one candidate would be both the subject of this national debate and a gag order barring full participation in it. Chutkan steadfastly refused to recognize that either this case or this defendant are far from typical. Her order bars Trump from making statements against Smith, his staff, court personnel, and potential witnesses. That last category could include one of Trump’s opponents in the presidential election, former Vice President Mike Pence. If Chutkan had simply barred statements targeting court staff or jurors, there would be no controversy. But she has imposed a vaguely worded court order that could turn campaign speeches into criminal contempt. While appellate courts have largely ruled in favor of lower courts’ gag orders, there have long been constitutional concerns over these limits on not just the free speech rights of defendants but also their zealous representation by defense counsel. It is not surprising that Smith dismisses such concerns. Smith has long adopted extreme legal positions that ignore constitutional values. This includes his prosecution of the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell (R), which was reversed in a unanimous 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court in 2016. The courts remain divided on the standards for curtailing the free speech rights of a defendant. A closely analogous case is the corruption trial of Rep. Harold E. Ford Sr. (D–Tenn.). The district court barred Ford from making any “extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication” that included criticism of the motives of the government or basis, merits, or evidence of the prosecution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the gag order as overbroad and stressed that any such limits on free speech should be treated as “presumptively void and may be upheld only on the basis of a clear showing that an exercise of First Amendment rights will interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial.” There remains a division on the courts of what showing is needed, but there is little evidence of any true balancing in Chutkan’s decision. This and the other trials will remain the focus of heated debate in this campaign. Her order will only silence the voice of the man who many feel is the victim of politically motivated prosecutions. This order will do little to reduce the criticism or the coverage. Ironically, it is a level of restraint that Judge Chutkan herself has failed to show in the past. For example, in sentencing a rioter in 2022, Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added that “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That would seem to imply the guilt of an individual who was not even charged. Yet Chutkan has refused to recuse herself in now trying the very man she was referencing as responsible for the crimes of that day. As has long been the case, many are turning a blind eye to the implications of this order. They cannot see beyond the name at the top of the caption page. But this order would allow any judge to effectively strip a political candidate of the ability to contest the merits and motivations involved in his own prosecution, including challenging the veracity of prosecutors or witnesses. In some of these cases, there is ample reason for such criticism. While I have long said that the Mar-a-Lago prosecution by Smith is well-supported in both law and facts, other prosecutions currently ongoing are clearly politically motivated. The most obvious is the prosecution brought by Alvin Bragg in New York — a case that contorts existing law in an attempt to bag a political figure unpopular in his jurisdiction. While the Chutkan gag order does not extend to the other cases, they constitute a daisy-chain of trials that will have Trump running between courts before the election. There is much to criticize in Smith’s second indictment, which will be tried before a judge who previously denounced Trump in a district where 95 percent of the voters opposed Trump. After Chutkan ordered a trial just before Super Tuesday, she is now gagging only one candidate — the very candidate who is campaigning against the weaponization of the criminal justice system. You do not have to like or support Trump to recognize the serious problem inherent in such a gag order. Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org. The Trump Gag Order Should Be Struck Down Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute
President Biden has completed his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, with media reporting that he gave a "green light" for Israel to begin a ground operation in Gaza. Many questions remain unanswered, including the role of US military assets in the area and what mission, if any, US troops might have in support of Israeli military action. Also today: Jewish peace groups arrested in US Capitol office buildings and rockets begin flying into US bases in Iraq and Syria. Watch today's Liberty Report: What Did Biden Promise Netanyahu? Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute Western media start to note how their politicians' unwavering support for Israel and Ukraine is diminishing their countries' global standing. At Naked Capitalism Yves Smith notes the devastating political effects of the Gaza bombing on Biden's foreign policies: Biden Gets Zelensky Treatment in Middle East as Israel Tries to EscalateIsrael bombed, probably with a US made Hellfire missile, the courtyard of the Baptist al-Ahli Arab hospital where thousands had sought refuge. A short video of the immediate aftermath shows several dozens if not hundreds of dead and wounded. Doctors later held a press conference while standing among some of the casualties. Like other hospitals al-Ahli Arab had been told by Israel to evacuate but could not do so as there are no other places where the sick and wounded, including many intensive care cases, could be cared for. Three days earlier, notes the UN, the same hospital had, like others, already been bombed: 14 October 2023: In Gaza city city and governorate, Ahli Arab Hospital was hit by Israeli airstrikes, partially damaging two floors and damaging the ultrasound and mammography room. Four people were injured. Sources: Al Jazeera V and Personal CommunicationTo then claim, as Biden did, that 'the other team' was responsible for the attack is unfathomable. It was also way too late says a RUSI fellow: Going to repeat this as the situation has moved more in the past 16 hours than in the previous week.No country besides the US and a few Europeans will ever defend such barbarity. They will simply stop listen to what the 'west' has to say. The Financial Times quotes a G7-official who struggles with this global divide: Rush by west to back Israel erodes developing countries’ support for Ukraine (archived)Looking at the current BRI anniversary meeting of some 140 states in Beijing, the New York Times voices similar concerns: New Global Divisions on View as Biden Goes to Israel and Putin to ChinaThe editorial board of the Washington Post also declares the failure of US policies: It would be a moral and strategic mistake to ignore Gaza’s plight Still, the plight of Gazans has been treated by the United States and the wider international community as a sad but immutable fact in an irresolvable conflict. This was a moral and strategic error, helping promote the instability that has, for now, wrecked efforts on the part of Israel, the United States and Arab states to build a durable diplomatic settlement among the region’s big players. The Carnegie Council explains how the global rift necessitates a change in western policies. It especially sees a need to ditch the so called "value-" or "rules-based-order" policies: A Requiem for the Rules-Based OrderSome might say that the west will never change its behavior but I do not believe that. The west WILL HAVE TO change its behavior or it will go down into history's graveyard. There is no longer an alternative as the 'rules based order' has proven to be an unsellable dead end. Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama. West's Pro-Israel Position Accelerates Its Loss Of Power Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute |
Ron Paul
|