Trump VP contender Kristi Noem stands by killing her dog Cricket amid bipartisan ridicule

SUN, APR 28 20245:58 PM EDT

Republican Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota doubled down in a social media post on a controversial anecdote about killing her puppy in an upcoming memoir.

Noem has attempted to spin the anecdote into a case for her political deftness and willingness to take on “tough challenges” as she vies to become Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick.

Democrats and Republicans alike have taken to social media to ridicule Noem for the memoir anecdote and mark this controversy as a possible death knell for her VP chances.

Republican South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem on Sunday attempted to spin a controversial anecdote about killing her puppy, revealed in her upcoming memoir, into a case for her political deftness as she vies to become Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick.

A Friday report from The Guardian described snippets of her memoir about her decisions to kill various family farm animals, including a 14-month-old puppy named Cricket and an unnamed goat.

“I can understand why some people are upset about a 20-year-old story of Cricket, one of the working dogs at our ranch,” Noem wrote in an X post on Sunday. “Whether running the ranch or in politics, I have never passed on my responsibilities to anyone else to handle. Even if it’s hard and painful. I followed the law and was being a responsible parent, dog owner, and neighbor.”

Noem has spent the weekend dealing with ridicule from both Democrats and Republicans since those anecdotes became public.

In both instances, she has stood by her decision to put down the animals, saying that Cricket had an “aggressive personality” and that the goat was “nasty and mean,” according to The Guardian report.

Noem’s Sunday defense comes as a last-ditch effort to quell the flurry of doubts that the situation has stirred as she competes for Trump’s VP nomination against contenders like North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, Senator Tim Scott, R-S.C. and Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.

Over the past several days, people across the political spectrum have taken to social media to comment on the controversy.

Right-wing media personality Laura Loomer said this anecdote would be a death knell for Noem’s vice-presidential aspirations.

“She can’t be VP now,” Loomer said in a Friday post. “You can’t shoot your dog and then be VP.”

President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign quickly seized the opportunity to issue a subtle dig on Friday, posting pictures of Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris smiling with dogs.

Florida Governor and former GOP presidential candidate Ron DeSantis posted a call to action for people to adopt rescue dogs.

Noem’s animal killing is not the first time she has raised eyebrows in Washington.

In March, the South Dakota governor posted an infomercial-style video for a Texas dentist-appearing to act as a commercial testimony for the business, despite holding public office.

(Her plan worked!Why do they always leave out the goat?)

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/28/trump-vp-contender-kristi-noem-defends-dog-killing-amid-ridicule.html

>>20794981

I always thought he’d pick Governor Doug Burgum or Ben Carson

>>20793974 Mar A Lago docs dropped last nightPN

Is Judge Cannon trying to get the DOJ to drop this obvious case of collusion and criminal conspiracy?

Or is she giving out the reasons for her to dismiss this case by releasing the evidence before she announces it?

I think it’s number 2 because DOJ will try to keep it alive.

Peter Navarro’s get-out-of-jail request is again rejected by the Supreme Court

By John Fritze, CNN

Updated 10:04 AM EDT, Mon April 29, 2024

CNN

—

The Supreme Court on Monday for a second time shot down a request from former Trump adviser Peter Navarro to avoid further prison time over his contempt of Congress conviction.

In an emergency request last month, Navarro asked the Supreme Court to let him remain free while he challenged his conviction at the federal appeals court in Washington, DC. Chief Justice John Roberts denied that request on March 18, and Navarro reported to prison the following day.

Attempting a procedural maneuver that has not worked in decades, Navarro then resubmitted the request to Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first high-court nominee. Supreme Court rules allow parties whose emergency applications are denied by a single justice to resubmit to another justice.

Gorsuch referred the request to the full court, which considered it during its closed door conference on Friday. The court denied the request on Monday without comment.

Navarro’s attorneys initially argued that pausing a lower court’s ruling rejecting his bid to stay out of prison was warranted because he wasn’t a flight risk and was raising substantial legal questions. Navarro argued his appealed would “raise a number of issues on appeal that he contends are likely to result in the reversal of his conviction, or a new trial.”

Two lower courts turned down similar appeals.

Roberts rejected the request with a brief opinion last month. The chief justice said that the federal appeals courts concluded Navarro had forfeited any challenge to the idea that, even if he was entitled to executive privilege, he could avoid appearing before Congress. And Roberts said he saw “no basis to disagree with the determination that Navarro forfeited those arguments.”

Navarro was sentenced to four months in prison after a jury found him guilty of failing to respond to congressional subpoenas for documents and testimony in the House’s investigation of the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack.

Navarro’s underlying case is still pending before the appeals court.

(The court is political and afraid to take on any Trump related cases. They’ve been cowed by the left.)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/29/politics/supreme-court-rejects-peter-navarros-get-of-jail-request-again/index.html

A 15-year-old law review by Brett Kavanaugh offers a clue at how the Supreme Court Justice could rule in Trump's immunity case

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

Mon, April 29, 2024 at 7:45 AM EDT

1/2

SCOTUS could soon rule on Trump's claims of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

A 2009 law review by Brett Kavanaugh sheds light on how the conservative justice might rule.

Kavanaugh didn't support blanket immunity and said prosecution could occur after a president's term.

Many in the political world are waiting with bated breath as the Supreme Court considers arguments over whether Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for his behavior while in office.

Depending on how the high court rules, some of Trump's most serious legal troubles could melt away instantly. And though the conservative-majority court could hand Trump a massive legal win with their ruling if they offer a sweeping decision that affirms immunity for the former president's actions, as his lawyers have argued, analysts and legal experts say it's more likely he'll be offered a minor victory and the Supreme Court may not issue a final ruling on immunity at all.

But one clue, hidden in a 2009 legal review written by Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh, could indicate how the conservative judge may decide in this case. And as Kavanaugh is relatively moderate compared to the court's other right-leaning justices, his 15-year-old analysis may offer insight into how the other Republican-appointed justices are looking at the matter before them.

A presidency free of distractions

In his article, published in the Minnesota Law Review in 2009, when he was working as a US Circuit Judge, Kavanaugh argues that the public grossly underestimates the difficulty of the President's job and that anyone elected to hold the office should "be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible."

That includes criminal prosecution — at least while in office.

"The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office," Kavanaugh wrote, arguing in favor of deferring criminal and civil prosecutions against sitting presidents accused of wrongdoing to ensure they can efficiently carry out the responsibilities of office.

One might contend that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking president, Kavanaugh acknowledges, but "the Constitution already provides that check."

"If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress," Kavanaugh wrote. "Moreover, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards."

The President's job is difficult enough as is, Kavanaugh argued, so he shouldn't be burdened by prosecution attempts while in office, especially since there are avenues to remove him from office if necessary.

In his writing, Kavanaugh noted he didn't always feel this way, so it's possible he may have changed his mind on this topic in the intervening years. Still, a question remains about his intent when using the phrase "impeached and removed" and if that could impact how he rules on Trump's claims of sweeping immunity.

Trump's lawyers have argued he could only be held criminally liable for actions taken while in office if he was impeached and removed by Congress for the behavior in question.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/15-old-law-review-brett-114501615.html

>>20795140

2/2

Jonathan Entin, a retired constitutional law professor at Case Western Reserve University who clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg while she was in the DC Circuit, told Business Insider that, based on his writing, Kavanaugh might not agree.

"I don't read that as saying that Kavanaugh would agree with the Trump argument about you have to be impeached and removed before you can be prosecuted," Entin said. "I read that part of the article as saying that the President is not subject to indictment and prosecution while in office. That is a position that the Department of Justice has maintained under both Democratic and Republican administrations alike."

The real factors SCOTUS is weighing

Entin said that instead of deciding whether impeachment and removal are required to quash claims of immunity, Kavanaugh and the other conservative justices might more likely be considering whether to draw a hard-line rule about when immunity applies or establish a general standard by which these types of claims can be measured.

"The people who, in the oral arguments, were talking about potential future prosecutions might be trying to draw a bright line which says, 'okay, these sorts of activities might be subject to prosecution, but other things the President will have immunity,'" Entin said, noting that the conservative justices tended to be more focused on future applications of the decision rather than crafting a ruling based on the specific set of facts at hand.

Regardless of what drives their decision — and he doesn't rule out partisan ideology as a factor — Entin said it's unlikely the Supreme Court will resolve the question of presidential immunity in this case completely. He expects the Justices to kick the decision back down to the lower courts in what would be a victory, but not a landslide, for Trump.

"My sense is that we are probably going to get something that looks like a 6-3 decision, where the three Democratic appointees will dissent, and the six Republican appointees will say that this case has to go back to the lower courts to sort out what part of the indictment involves official actions — for which the President is immune from prosecution at any time — from things that are not, and that will kick the can down the road," Entin said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/15-old-law-review-brett-114501615.html

Maria Bartiromo confronts Jim Jordan over investigations 'going nowhere'

She’s right you know!

https://youtu.be/dGg_ZB0mBNk

Matt Gaetz Gets Primary Challenge From McCarthy-Aligned BLM Supporter

HENRY RODGERS

April 29, 2024

REPUBLICAN FLORIDA REP. MATT GAETZ IS FACING A PRIMARY OPPONENT WHO HAS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN SUPPORT FOR BLACK LIVES MATTER (BLM) AND DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION (DEI) INITIATIVES, SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS REVIEWED BY THE DAILY CALLER REVEAL.

Aaron Dimmock, a former Navy aviator, filed Friday to challenge Gaetz in the Republican primary for Florida’s first Congressional district on Aug. 20. Dimmock’s LinkedIn page shows that he previously supported BLM and advocated for DEI.

Dimmock shares a treasurer with American Patriots PAC, a group founded by allies of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. McCarthy and Gaetz have been engaged in an intense public feud since Gaetz helped lead an effort to oust McCarthy from the Speakership last year.

“In an overwhelmingly Republican Texas district north of Houston, CLF and another group founded by McCarthy allies, American Patriots PAC, spent nearly $1 million to help McCarthy favorite Morgan Luttrell beat Christian Collins,” the Washington Post previously reported.

Dimmock made pro-BLM, pro-DEI posts while serving as a director at Chapman & Co., a firm which conducts workplace training. Dimmock shared a Chapman & Co. post that said “#blacklivesmatter,” “we commit to audit every business process to ensure they reflect a culture of inclusion” and “serve non-profits advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

In a 2020 post, Dimmock also said “We remain committed to making it better #leadership #inclusion,” in regards to a post about Black Lives Mater.

“I’m excited to welcome Missouri-based DEI instructor Aaron Dimmock to the campaign. This is Trump Country. Our pronouns are USA and MAGA,” Gaetz told the Caller. “I’m a proud Trump Republican. I stand shoulder to shoulder with President Trump to defeat Joe Biden, secure our border, restore our economy, and support our veterans.”

“I’ll never stop fighting for President Trump or for the people of the First Congressional District,” he added.

The Caller contacted Dimmock about the LinkedIn posts, to which he did not immediately respond.

(McCarthy is going after Trump, that’s why he’s going after MAGA house. We were warned years ago by Mr. Reagan that leftists pretending to Maga or republican was infiltrating every position in local, state and federal government, to take conservatives down. McCarthy is mad at Trump for backing him getting removed.)

https://dailycaller.com/2024/04/29/matt-gaetz-aaron-dimmock-florida-house-primary-kevin-mccarthy-blm-dei/

Liz Harrington On Arizona: Arresting the Political Opposition— In the Name of ‘Democracy’

5:44

https://rumble.com/embed/v4ps4ql/?pub=4

“This Movement Is Moving Beyond Borders”: Jack Posobiec On The Global Nationalist Movement. CPAC Hungary, Romania & Spain

16:22

https://rumble.com/embed/v4ps42n/?pub=4

>>20795592

Totally agree, said it from the beginning. She’s a jar baby, something weird about her. Her talking about being loyal to Trump, I question that and she makes a lot of money from corps and MIC

Law firm exits Tiffany Henyard, Village of Dolton's defense amidst financial strain, FBI probe. She stopped paying themor maybe they found out a lot more

0:53

https://youtu.be/aPMz3CbRElM

Bragg allowed political motivations to influence Trump decision, House report revealsJim Jordan

8:30

https://youtu.be/S3iKSD6WYtU