>>20566020 23 States and District of Columbia File Amicus Briefs in Favor of Joe Biden and Government Censorship and Regulation of Speech in America – via the MO v. Biden CasePN

Couple of things:

1. Carry this list with you and share with family and friends to be aware of these states, avoid them or move to hell out. It's not going to get any better

The list of un-American states that support government censorship include:

New York Oregon

Colorado Pennsylvania,

Arizona Rhode Island,

California Delaware,

Connecticut Hawaii,

Vermont, Illinois,

Washington, Maine,

Washington, D.C. Maryland,

Wisconsin Massachusetts,

New Jersey Michigan,

New Mexico, Minnesota,

Nevada

The states essentially argue that they have an interest in collaborating with tech companies to “encourage” the public to behave themselves and “discourage” the public from believing alleged “disinformation” or engaging in online predatory behavior. The clear message is that they believe that the government has the right to shut down and censor speech.

1. If you do visit these states, be completely aware that whatever you say or do will be heard from the watchers or left wing bullies. Protect your Freedom and that of your families and friends.

This is just the sign that this is just the beginning of the precipice, or their attempts at civil war to destroy America. We will not comply!

Appeals Court Denies Peter Navarro’s Bid to Delay Jail Term

Former Trump administration official rejected by federal court.

By Zachary Stieber 3/14/20241/2

Peter Navarro’s bid to delay his prison sentence as he appeals his conviction was rejected on March 14 by a federal court. Mr. Navarro, who served in former President Donald Trump’s administration, was convicted in 2023 of contempt of Congress and is slated to report to jail on March 19.

Mr. Navarro’s bid to stay out of prison while he appeals his conviction was turned down in February by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who found that Mr. Navarro failed to pose any substantial questions of law in his motion. Mr. Navarro then asked an appeals court to overturn Judge Mehta’s ruling.

In the decision on Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the fresh bid.

“Appellant has not shown that his appeal presents substantial questions of law or fact likely to result in reversal, new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a reduced sentence of imprisonment that is less than the amount of time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process,” the court said.

The ruling from the three-judge panel was unanimous. The panel was composed of Circuit Judges Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard, and Robert Wilkins, all of whom were appointed by former President Barack Obama

Peter Navarro Ordered to Report to Prison on March 19

Federal law requires people seeking release pending appeal to present a “substantial question of law or fact” that is likely to result in one of the outlined results. According to circuit precedent, a substantial question is a question “that very well could be decided the other way.”

Mr. Navarro argued in filings to the appeals court that, as a senior presidential adviser, he was protected by executive privilege. He said the case presents questions that could be decided the other way and thus the appeals court should grant his motion.

“Because the congressional subpoena to Dr. Navarro implicated former

President Trump’s privilege, it was incumbent upon Congress and/or the Department of Justice to confirm with the Judicial branch that the privilege could be overcome, and, having failed to do so, the indictment as against Dr. Navarro must be dismissed,” one filing stated. “At the very least, this issue presents a “close question” or a question, “that very well could be decided the other way,” and this court should order that Dr. Navarro be released pending his appeal.

Government officials in a brief to the court said that Mr. Navarro did not present any substantial questions. Government lawyers said that Mr. Navarro never established that President Trump invoked privilege and that President Joe Biden waived any privilege.

“And even if President Trump had asserted executive privilege, Navarro still could not show a likelihood of reversal or a new trial, because it would not have justified his total noncompliance with the subpoena,” they said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/appeals-court-denies-peter-navarros-bid-to-delay-jail-term-5607524?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=lead-special-courts-medium-0

>>20567463

2/2

Mr. Navarro had said that even if there was no presumptive privilege, he “reasonably believed he was dutybound to assert former President Trump’s executive privilege,” which he said should preclude prosecution for contempt. “Once an assertion of executive privilege had been made, it was incumbent upon the respective government branches to navigate its application,” one filing stated.

In another,his lawyers said that “the government blithely dismisses Dr. Navarro’s argument that requiring a formal invocation by a former president risks vitiating the privilege entirelyinsofar as to hold otherwise would preclude a former president unexpectedly suffering from disability or death to assert the privilege and enable the recalcitrant or disgruntled to affirmatively waive the privilege unbeknownst to the president.”

Lawyers for Mr. Navarro did not respond to a request for comment on the new ruling. Mr. Navarro was sentenced to four months in prison by Judge Mehta, another appointee of President Obama.Mr. Navarro has been ordered by federal officials to report to the Bureau of Prisons in Miami no later than 2 p.m. on March 19, according to his lawyers.

Headed to the Supreme Court?

Stanley Brand, one of Mr. Navarro’s lawyers, said in one recent filing that Mr. Navarro planned to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if the appeals court ruled against him. That’s the nation’s top court and the next place to go following the rejection by the appeals court.

Mr. Navarro said on NTD’s “Capitol Report“ recently that he expected his case would go to the Supreme Court.

“I believe it’ll eventually go to the Supreme Court and settle good law on constitutional separation of powers and executive privilege,” Mr. Navarro said.

The contempt charges were brought after the U.S. House of Representatives select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol subpoenaed Mr. Navarro and he declined to testify or provide documents.

“I was more than happy to comply with that subpoena if they simply called the president and asked for a waiver of the privilege,” Mr. Navarro said. “And I think it tells the lie, in this whole case, that they never made one phone call, they never lifted a finger to call him to get the information they claimed they needed to have.Had they made that one phone call, we wouldn’t be sitting here.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/appeals-court-denies-peter-navarros-bid-to-delay-jail-term-5607524?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=lead-special-courts-medium-0

>>20567522

Luciferian/Fallen Ones are destroying our country. They need to get the same treatment back, but theirs is justified because they are illegal. All of them

Law Enforcement Expert Just Blew My Mind on Jan 6 Video, must watch. There is a pan, tilt, zoom (PTZ) camera on the pipe bomb. Someone at the comms center, saw who dropped the bomb the night before. The camera was manned for 24 hours a day.

4:16

https://rumble.com/embed/v4emgh6/?pub=4

>>20567634

this is one of the most important short clips on the pipe bomb outside the DNCmust listen. Darren Beattie is going to get a lot of info on this now.

Judge Weighs Motions to Dismiss Trump Documents Case

Arguments on the two motions frequently bled into a separate motion to dismiss based on selective and vindictive prosecution.

By Catherine Yang, Jacob Burg and T.J. Muscaro 3/14/2024

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannonon March 14 heard arguments on two of former President Donald Trump’s several motions to dismiss a case alleging he mishandled classified documents,ending the hearing by telling the parties she would issue orders on the motions “promptly.”

Defense attorneys had argued for dismissal of 32 counts regarding mishandling classified documents under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and for “unconstitutional vagueness,” but the judge seemed unconvinced these arguments were not better suited to the trial stage of the case.

Judge Cannon said it seemed “premature” to bring in facts from outside of the indictment pretrial—such as whether the records in President Trump’s possession were “personal records.”

Much of the argument of the day turned into debate over whether President Trump had the right to designate the documents personal, whether he did do so, and whether that designation under the Presidential Records Act would supersede charges based on the Espionage Act.

Last summer, President Trump was charged with 37 counts, along with his valet Walt Nauta. Later, three charges were added related to obstruction, and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira was added as a co-defendant. The case came after the FBI’s high profile raid of Mar-a-Lago in 2022, on the basis that President Trump retained classified documents he had been subpoenaed to return.

Arguments on the two motions frequently bled into a separate motion to dismiss based on selective and vindictive prosecution, which was not on Thursday’s agenda. Attorneys Emil Bove and Todd Blanche argued for the defense and attorneys David Harbach and Jay Bratt argued for the prosecution. Legal counsel for co-defendants Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira said they planned to join the motion to dismiss under the PRA but have not filed notice yet.

Personal Records?

The indictment alleges it became a crime for President Trump to have classified documents the day he left office. Defense attorneys argued that the PRA differentiates between “presidential” and “personal” records at the president’s sole discretion, tasking the National Archives and Records Administration only with archival duties for records a president chooses to return.

The defense’s position is that by taking the documents from the White House, President Trump had designated these records as “personal.”

Prosecutors argued that President Trump never designated the records personal, did not have the ability to do so as a former president, and that even if he did it would not shield him from prosecution.

Mr. Harbach argued there was no record of President Trump designating the records as personal, that he never wrote it down, told anyone, or labeled his boxes personal, which the judge said was not a “fair” standard and certainly could not be taken as an admission of guilt.

Mr. Bratt said the documents contained classified information and were related to the government, and therefore could not be personal records. “Personal” records refer to things such as diary entries, he argued.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/judge-weighs-motions-to-dismiss-trump-documents-case-5607560?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=lead-special-courts-medium-0

>>20567772

2/2

Past Presidents

The defense pointed to past presidents whose “personal” diary records contained information related to national security. They argued that if the Espionage Act makes it illegal to possess classified information, then it would be so even if the information was in the form of a diary entry. The distinct lack of prosecution of past presidents on this matter was instructive, they said.

Story continues below advertisement

Former President Bill Clinton kept tape records containing military information, which he shared with a biographer. Former President Ronald Reagan’s diaries undisputedly contained classified information.

These records were both “personal” documents and neither president faced charges from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the defense said, arguing that President Trump’s case broke precedent.

Prosecutors said President Clinton’s tapes were not found to contain classified information, but acknowledged that President Reagan did not face prosecution for his personal records, which did include classified information.

They brought up examples of other officials who faced prosecution for retaining classified information, but could not supply examples when pressed by the judge for instances where vice presidents or presidents faced prosecution over retention of classified information.

Judge Cannon asked whether history would then not inform a sitting president of what was acceptable—if past presidents had retained classified information without prosecution, what would lead the next president to believe otherwise? She asked if thiswould not make it a case of “arbitrary” enforcement.

The defense added that only a president has the authority to designate records personal, not NARA, the DOJ, or the court. They stressed they were not asking the court to make a determination that the records were personal because their position is that President Trump has already done so and this is not a matter subject to judicial review.

Authority

Defense attorneys said that NARA has never before made a criminal referral against a former president, and that President Trump was never informed of a criminal referral.They argued that the archive has only the ability to request the return of documents, and no authority to retrieve them, but had treated President Trump differently from other presidents.

With past presidents, NARA operated on an honor system, the defense argued. For example, the archive has sent a letter to former President George W. Bush asking whether he had classified information or other documents to return. A spokesperson answered that they did not, and that was the end of the matter.

The defense argued every president since George Washington has taken things from the White House and that Congress had passed the PRA giving presidents discretion to choose what documents to hand over to NARA for public recordkeeping in hopes that records could be archived.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/judge-weighs-motions-to-dismiss-trump-documents-case-5607560?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=lead-special-courts-medium-0

>>20567772

So Bidan stealing records and exposing them to spys and whomever, gets off because he's demented, but continues to stay in as President.

14 Mar, 2024 16:00

Moscow estimates number of foreign mercenaries killed in Ukraine

More than 13,000 foreigners have taken part in the hostilities on Kiev’s side, nearly 6,000 of whom are now dead, according to the Russian Defense Ministry

The Russian Defense Ministry has released an update on the number of foreign mercenaries killed fighting for Ukraine since February 2022.

At least 13,387 foreign mercenaries have traveled to Ukraine to fight for Kiev, according to figures released by the ministry, with some 5,962 of these confirmed killed.

Ukraine’s western neighbor,Poland, which has been one of the strongest supporters of Kiev during the conflict, has provided by far the largest number of mercenaries, with 2,960, the ministry data shows. More than a half of these, some 1,497 Polish nationals, have been killed during the hostilities.

TheUS, Kiev’s main sponsor and donor of military aid, hasprovided some 1,113 mercenaries. At least491 of these have been killed, according to Russian military estimates.

Third on the list isGeorgia, which has provided some1,042 mercenaries, at least 561 of whom have been killed. While the Caucasus nation has taken a neutral stance on the conflict, repeatedly rejecting Kiev’s calls to open a “second front” against Russia, local hardline nationalists have actively participated in the hostilities.

Georgia is closely followed byCanada, which has provided1,005 identified mercenaries, at least 491 of whom have died. Canada has a large Ukrainian community, mostly originating from the post-WWII era, when Ukrainian Nazi collaborators fled to the country en masse, escaping persecution by the Soviet Union.

The UK, Romania, Croatia and France have also contributed significant numbers of mercenaries. Despite Paris declaring support for Kiev, only some 356 French nationals have opted to fight for it, with around 147 of these getting killed, according to Russian estimates.

French mercenaries are believed to have sustained heavy casualties in mid-January, when a “temporary assembly point of foreign fighters” was hit by a Russian high-precision strike in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkov. The attack killed more than 60 foreigners, predominantly French nationals, the Russian military said at the time.

https://www.rt.com/russia/594276-ukraine-foreign-mercenaries-killed/

(I would have thought there were a lot more than the numbers stated if Ukraine has lost over 440,00 soldiers)

14 Mar, 2024 11:18

Ukrainian attempt to break into Russia thwarted (DISTURBING VIDEO)

As many as 195 soldiers were killed in the failed operation, according to the Russian Defense Ministry

Ukraine lost up to 195 troops and a large assortment of materiel during a failed attempt to enter Russia's Belgorod Region, the Defense Ministry in Moscow said in a daily briefing on Thursday.

The attackers had breached the Russian border and were moving towards the village of Spodaryushino,when they were struck by aviation and artillery. Kiev lost five tanks, four armored combat vehicles, three UR-77 mine-breaching vehicles and three military engineering vehicles, Moscow claimed.

Disturbing images circulating on Russian social media purport to show Ukrainian soldiers killed in action during the operation. According to the description in the post,Russia used a TOS rocket system against a group of Ukrainian troops. The multiple rocket launcher usesthermobaric munitionsand is designed to attack military personnel in the field.

The Defense Ministry later released footage of attacks against Ukrainian forces, including a clip that appeared to show the same scene as one of the uncorroborated images. In it, some of the Ukrainian soldiers can be seen moving, but appear to be injured.

A separate exchange with Ukrainian forces was reported on Thursday by the governor of neighboring Kursk Region. No specific details about that engagement were immediately available, except that it happened near the border village of Tyotkino.

On Tuesday, three Kiev-backed militia formations armed with heavy weapons attempted to enter Kursk and Belgorod regions.In that assault, the Ukrainian side lost over 230 fighters, seven tanks, three Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and two armored personnel carriers, according to the Russian military.

https://www.rt.com/russia/594265-ukrainian-incursion-belgorod-region/

https://rumble.com/embed/v4gmblw/?pub=4

14 Mar, 2024 16:40

NATO-supplied missiles used in attack on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet – bloc chief

Since the conflict began, Ukraine has destroyed multiple Russian naval vessels with the help of Western weaponry

Ukraine has used NATO-supplied missiles to strike Russian Navy vessels in the Black Sea, the bloc's secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, acknowledged on Thursday, adding that he considers the area to be of “great strategic importance.”

Earlier this month, Ukrainian forces struck a Russian Navy ship off the coast of Crimea with the help of several seaborne drones. Similar incidents have taken place during the course of the conflict, with Kiev’s biggest hit to date being the Moskva, the former flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which sank on April 14, 2022. Some of the attacks have involved air-to-surface cruise missiles, with some military experts speculating that British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles could have been used.

At a press conference on Thursday, Stoltenberg said that “one of the big victories that Ukraine has achieved is actually to be able to push back the Russian Black Sea Fleet and to destroy many other ships,” ensuring an “open corridor from Odessa all the way to the Bosporus.”

He noted that “some of the missiles, some of the systems that have been so critical in opening this corridor have been, of course, provided by NATO Allies.”

His comments come as Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, warned on Wednesday that the situation has reached the point where high-ranking US officials are saying theWest needs to help Ukrainians “strike deep in Crimea.” In other words, he said, “the direct involvement of the United States in the conflict has been officially recognized.”

Antonov noted that the direct participation of Ukraine’s Western backers in the conflict would have the “most unpredictable consequences” for the world.

The ambassador was responding to a comment made by CIA Director William Burns during a hearing at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Monday.Burns argued that additional funding would allow Ukraine to conduct more “deep penetration strikes in Crimea,” continue targeting Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, and eventually “regain the offensive initiative.”

Also on Monday, the head of Ukrainian military intelligence (GUR), Kirill Budanov, announced that Kiev’s recent attacks on the peninsula are paving the way for a “serious operation in Crimea.”

https://www.rt.com/news/594281-nato-stoltenberg-missiles-black-sea-fleet/

(Russia hasn’t even taken off the gloves in this war yet, the more they escalate the more the West will regret this.)