dChan
Anonymous ID: b02e3b June 27, 2022, 10:27 a.m. No.16537302   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>7858

>>16537189

Ken Klukowski Accuses January 6 Committee of Withholding And Misrepresenting Critical Evidence, Challenges It to Release His Full Transcript

Joel B. Pollak26 Jun 2022

 

LIZ CHENEY: The committee has also learned that Mr. Clark was working with another attorney at the department named Ken Klukowski, who drafted this letter to Georgia with Mr. Clark. Mr. Klukowski had arrived at the department on December 15th with just 36 days left until the inauguration. He was specifically assigned to work under Jeff Clark….

Let’s take a look at an email recommending that Mr. Klukowski and Dr. Eastman brief Vice President Pence and his staff. Other recipients of this email included the chief of staff to Congressman Louie Gohmert. And the email says, as stated last week, I believe the vice president and his staff would benefit greatly from a briefing by John and Ken. As I also mentioned, we want to make sure we don’t overexpose Ken, given his new position.

This email suggests that Mr. Klukowski was simultaneously working with Jeffrey Clark to draft the proposed letter to Georgia officials to overturn their certified election and working with Dr. Eastman to help pressure the vice president to overturn the election.

Response of Ken Klukowski to January 6 Committee Hearing of June 23, 2022

The January 6 Committee falsely accused me on Thursday of being a go-between in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. That accusation is false both in its broad outlines and its details. Since the Committee first contacted me, I have cooperated without hesitation, provided it with hundreds of documents, and sat for many hours of recorded depositions. The information produced from those efforts fully contradicts the Committee’s statements regarding my actions, yet the Committee has chosen to keep such information to itself rather than share it with the public. I would highlight several critical points of correction:

First, I was not sent to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to act as a link between Jeff Clark and John Eastman on election matters, or to otherwise seek to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Nor did I. My transfer to the Civil Division of DOJ was in the works since July 2020, long before Jeff Clark was the acting head of that Division. The transfer was for the purpose of gaining litigation experience, was preliminarily approved in September 2020, and had nothing to do with the election. All of this is contained in documents and testimony provided to the Committee.

Second, as I testified to the Committee, I disagreed with John Eastman’s theory on the powers of the Vice President at the January 6 joint session of Congress. My view is—and has always been—that, because the Constitution specifies that Congress sets the date for the Electoral College to cast its votes, any election challenges in court, or any direct action by state legislatures to appoint electors, must happen by December 14, 2020, at the latest. The Committee has my sworn testimony, and documents reflecting my expression of such views, yet has chosen to ignore them and misrepresent me as advancing the opposite of my views.

Third, I never briefed or advised Vice President Pence, or his staff, regarding any matter, including the 2020 election or the January 6 joint session of Congress. Any outside suggestion that I do so was not made with my involvement. Moreover, had anyone, including the Vice President, asked, I would have expressed the views described above and contradicted any suggestion to the contrary. I made this clear in my testimony to the Committee, but the Committee chose to ignore this testimony as well.

Fourth, while it is correct that I “assisted” in the draft letter for which Jeff Clark later sought approval, that letter was Clark’s idea, largely dictated or outlined by him, and my role as his subordinate was to commit his dictations and outline to writing and fill in legal citations at the direction of my then-boss over the course of a single day, December 28, 2020. Clark told me the letter was for joint signature by Acting Attorney General Rosen, Acting Deputy Attorney General Donohue, and Clark. I had no knowledge at that time that neither General Rosen nor his deputy had any intention of signing such a letter. Moreover, I had no knowledge of any purported evidence uncovered in DOJ election investigations, nor did I communicate with anyone outside DOJ regarding the letter. Once again, I provided all of this information to the Committee during my depositions…

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/26/ken-klukowski-accuses-january-6-committee-of-withholding-and-misrepresenting-critical-evidence-challenges-it-to-release-his-full-transcript/

 

https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1541242839962714115?s=20&t=R7R407nUK69OOm3l3gFU3g

Anonymous ID: b02e3b June 27, 2022, 10:39 a.m. No.16537391   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>7402 >>7858

Post-Dobbs, The Abortion Battle Hits Activist State Courts

June 27, 2022

Part 1 of 3

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it was returning the authority to regulate or prohibit abortion “to the people and their elected representatives.” The abortion lobby, however, has no intention of leaving the legality of abortions to the American public. Instead, it will seek to create an abortion-on-demand regime via activist state judges. Countering this strategy must take priority, or Dobbs will be for naught.

 

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held there is no federal constitutional right to abortion. Contrary to the misperception of some, the reversal of Roe and Casey did not make abortion illegal. Rather, Dobbs removed stringent judicial oversight on abortion laws.

 

Pre-Dobbs, under the controlling Casey framework, any law passed by a legislative body, whether Congress or a state legislature, was subjected to judicial scrutiny to determine whether the statute imposed an “undue burden” on a woman’s alleged right to have an abortion. That standard of judicial review prevented elected lawmakers from regulating abortion in most ways and left many universally supported laws, such as bans on abortion after 20 weeks, voided by judicial fiat.

 

What Dobbs did in overturning Roe and Casey was restore “the Constitution’s neutrality” to the issue of abortion and return the “authority to address the issue of abortion through the processes of democratic self-government established by the Constitution” to the people.

 

The abortion lobby and the extreme abortion left do not want “the people” to have a say, however, and have been working for years to ensure that if Roe and Casey were overturned, abortion-on-demand would remain the law of the land. To circumvent the democratic process, abortion apologists have been turning to activist state court judges for years.

 

Working to Lock Down State Courts

 

Long before Dobbs came down, the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion advocacy organization, has been implementing this strategy. “For decades,” the Center bragged recently, it “has brought cases in state courts to strengthen abortion rights and guarantee access beyond the federal system’s growing constraints.” The state courts “offer wider possibilities,” the Center explained, with each state having “a unique constitution and court system that is free to protect reproductive autonomy under novel legal theories and rights.”

 

Currently, the high courts in at least nine states have held a right to abortion exists in the state constitution separate and distinct from the federal constitutional right to abortion declared in Roe and Casey, making the Supreme Court’s Friday decision in Dobbs irrelevant in those states.

 

That left-wing state justices in California and Massachusetts would find a right to abortion in their states’ constitutions should come as no surprise, but it is not merely blue states where activists have found success with this approach. Rather, this strategy worked even in Kansas, which has voted for Republican presidential candidates in every election cycle but one since 1940.

 

In 2019, in response to a lawsuit brought by two abortion providers challenging a state law that criminalized dismemberment abortions—in which live fetuses are killed by being ripped apart limb by limb—the Kansas Supreme Court declared for the first time that the state’s constitution provides a fundamental right to abortion. That decision, Hodes and Nauser v. Schmidt, thwarted the will of Kansans, “who have consistently elected one of the most pro-life and pro-active state legislatures in this country.”…continued

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/27/post-dobbs-the-abortion-battle-hits-activist-state-courts/

Anonymous ID: b02e3b June 27, 2022, 10:40 a.m. No.16537402   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>7412 >>7858

>>16537391

Post-Dobbs, The Abortion Battle Hits Activist State Courts

Part 2 of 3

 

Now Kansans Have to Amend the State Constitution

 

While Hodes conflicted with the pro-life principles held by the majority of Kansans, that did not dissuade the state supreme court from finding a constitutional right buried in the state’s 150-plus-year-old constitution. Those justices, after all, were not beholden to ordinary Kansans, with four of the Kansas Supreme Court justices in the Hodes majority having been appointed by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a supporter of legal abortion.

 

The Kansas Supreme Court justices in Hodes did precisely what the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs condemned—they misused their raw judicial power to prevent the populace from addressing “the issue of abortion through the processes of democratic self-government.” Kansans are attempting to reclaim that authority and have been for the last three years, but to do so and overturn the Hodes decision requires citizens to amend the state constitution.

 

On August 2, 2022, Kansans will have the chance to do so when citizens go to the polls to vote on the Value Them Both Amendment. The ballot summary of the proposed amendment explains that “a vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion.” In other words, the state constitution would remain neutral on abortion and leave the decision to the people and their elected representatives.

 

Here’s What Pro-Lifers Should Do

 

Kansas should serve as a warning to the pro-life movement of the risk activist state courts pose in other states and prompt a three-prong approach to counter the abortion lobby’s strategy.

 

First, the right-to-life movement should work to tee up constitutional amendments that clarify there is no state constitutional right to abortion. Four states currently have constitutional amendments expressly providing that the state constitutions do not include a right to abortion, with Tennessee passing the first amendment in 2014. Alabama and West Virginia followed in 2018, and Louisiana voters approved a similar amendment in 2020.

 

Second, just as elections matter on the federal level for determining the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, the pro-life movement must make clear the importance elections hold at the state level for both governors, who may appoint justices, and the justices themselves. Also, politicians and their staff responsible for vetting or appointing justices must take that responsibility more seriously and consider the potential jurist’s judicial philosophy.

 

Finally, politicians and pro-life advocates must educate the public on the value of allowing abortion policy to be decided by the legislative process instead of by judicial fiat. The public needs to hear the truth that if a state court declares a state constitutional right to abortion exists, a handful of justices will have the power to mandate an extreme abortion regime, allowing for post-viability abortions and taxpayer-funded abortions, and putting at risk even the most popular bipartisan legislation.

 

Governor Pushing for Human Dismemberment

 

With the volume of discourse raised since Friday’s release of Dobbs, it will be difficult to break through the noise, especially in states led by Democrats, such as Michigan. In Michigan, Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has been using her bully pulpit to frame the public debate over abortion while she uses her office to push the Michigan Supreme Court to declare a right to abortion under the Michigan constitution.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/27/post-dobbs-the-abortion-battle-hits-activist-state-courts/

Anonymous ID: b02e3b June 27, 2022, 10:41 a.m. No.16537412   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>7535 >>7858

>>16537402

Post-Dobbs, The Abortion Battle Hits Activist State Courts

Part 3 of 3

 

Earlier this year, Whitmer first filed a lawsuit in her role as governor asking the court to declare that a 1931 Michigan abortion ban violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Michigan constitution. That 1931 ban has been unenforceable since Roe was decided but remains on the books.

 

A lower court had stayed enforcement of the law pending the Dobbs decision. On Friday, in response to Dobbs, Whitmer filed a motion “asking the Michigan Supreme Court to immediately consider her lawsuit asking the court to decide if Michigan’s state constitution protects the right to abortion.”

 

Since the draft opinion in Dobbs leaked last month, Whitmer has also been whipping up public sentiment in advance of any hearing before the Michigan Supreme Court. “Now is the time to use every tool in our toolbox to protect all aspects of reproductive health care,” Whitmer said in a May press release, promising that she is “going to fight like h-ll so every Michigander can make decisions about their own body.”

 

“However we personally feel about abortion, health, not politics, should drive important medical decisions,” Whitmer argued, adding that “a woman must be able to make her own medical decisions with the advice of a health-care professional she trusts. Politicians should not make that decision for her.”

Lying to the Public

Beyond her euphemistic reference to “health care” and “medical decisions,” Whitmer seeks to hide the extreme abortion regime she wants for Michigan by diverting attention from the impact of a Michigan Supreme Court decision declaring the existence of a state constitutional right to abortion. She does this in two ways.

 

First, Whitmer focuses on the lack of a rape or incest exception to the 1931 abortion ban to create the impression that her lawsuit would merely render just that aspect of the law unconstitutional. But, if Whitmer succeeds in having a state constitutional right to abortion divined in the due process or equal protection clauses of the Michigan constitution, the state legislature would be unable to regulate abortion and taxpayer-funded abortions could be mandated.

 

Whitmer also misleads the public by citing a poll that 77 percent of Michiganders “believe abortion should be a woman’s decision.” That poll, however, failed to inquire about respondents’ views on any specifics, such as whether taxpayer-funded abortions should be constitutionally required or late-term abortions permitted.

 

What about parental notification or consent laws? Or laws banning abortions based on the sex of the unborn child? Such laws are widely supported, yet if Whitmer succeeds in her lawsuit, the Michigan Supreme Court would wrest those questions away from the legislative branch.

 

That is precisely what Whitmer and other abortion apologists want. They know that no matter how many polls they trot out, most of America does not want the extreme abortion regime that exists in California and the other states where courts have declared a state constitutional right to abortion exists.

 

The justices of the Michigan Supreme Court, like those on the Kansas Supreme Court, may not care. But on August 2, 2022, we’ll know if Kansans do, and pro-life advocates would be wise to watch the developments in both states to ensure that Dobbs’ promise to return the question to the people is fulfilled.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/27/post-dobbs-the-abortion-battle-hits-activist-state-courts/

Anonymous ID: b02e3b June 27, 2022, 10:59 a.m. No.16537535   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>7596 >>7850

>>16537412

Anons from MI get the word out, Whitmire wants unlimited and state paid abortions. Whitmer wants activist judges to put this in your constitution. Read the whole article, pass it on, theres no way MI 77% approves of abortion.

 

Whitmer will take it much further. Do not allow this witch to have the courts codify it in your constitution.

 

If you are voting soon,plaster this info everywhere, talk to every women, do not let this happen. You will be an abortion tourism state, with the following judgement from heaven.

 

Whitmire is fucking evil, andif all ekse fails, tell them Whitmer loves Fauci

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/27/post-dobbs-the-abortion-battle-hits-activist-state-courts/

Anonymous ID: b02e3b June 27, 2022, 11:08 a.m. No.16537596   🗄️.is đź”—kun

>>16537535

Kansas anonsget the word out do not let abortion rights added to your constitution. Aug 2, 2022 voting on this:

 

We wondered what the future would look like: intense state-by-state efforts, a patchwork of very different strategies depending on the political will and existing laws of the individual electorates. A native Missourian expressed pride that her state was the first to ban elective abortion, only hours after the Dobbs decision was announced.

 

Those with connections to Kansas discussed how it would be the first state to vote on abortion rights in a post-Roe world.

 

(On August 2nd, Kansans will vote on an amendment to the state constitution to overturn its state supreme court’s decision finding a “natural right” to abortion.)

 

We soberly noted that, in states like our homestate of Maryland, abortions remain legal up until the moment of birth and even infants born alive after a failed abortion may be left to die without care.

 

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/reflecting-on-the-impact-of-dobbs

Anonymous ID: b02e3b June 27, 2022, 11:18 a.m. No.16537675   🗄️.is đź”—kun

>>16537588

Dual citizenship was originally illegal in US, but they changed it. I agree dual citizenship is BS

 

Does the United States allow dual citizenship?

 

Yes, practically speaking. The U.S. government does not require naturalized U.S. citizens to relinquish citizenship in their country of origin. Although the Oath of Allegiance to the United States speaks of renouncing “allegiance and fidelity” to other nations, U.S. immigration law does not explicitly address the topic of dual citizenship. The best summarization of the U.S. government’s position on dual citizenship lies in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion, which explains that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” The U.S. Department of State also has a more technical discussion of dual citizenship.

 

Just because the United States allows dual citizenship, however, doesn’t necessarily mean your country of origin does, too. Some countries, such as China and India, will not recognize your status as a naturalized American on their soil. You may even lose your citizenship automatically in those countries upon becoming a U.S. citizen. It’s therefore important to understand the dual citizenship rules in your country of origin before pursuing U.S. citizenship.

 

In this guide, you will learn:

 

The Basics

Rights and Responsibilities of Dual Citizens

How to Get Dual Citizenship

Countries that Allow Dual Citizenship (or Don’t)

FAQs

We’ve joined forces with RapidVisa. Starting at $199, they help you complete your entire naturalization application, including all forms and supporting documents, from the moment your application is filed until you obtain U.S. citizenship. Boundless legal support plus RapidVisa speed means you get the fastest and best green card and naturalization service! Start your application today!

 

And law firms like this push it hard

 

https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/dual-citizenship/