Citizen Free Press
@CitizenFreePres
LATE NIGHT BREAKING
House Oversight Committeevotes to hold Merrick Garland in criminal contempt. The motion now moves to the full House for a vote.
This clip from tonight's hearing is absolutely wild.
https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1791317354095292925
Congress is a joke!
Obama-Appointed Judge Smacks Down Marc Elias’ ‘Absurd’ Election Lawfare
BY: M.D. KITTLE. MAY 15, 2024.1/2
The firm of Democrats’ favorite lawfare artist — who was also the attorney behind the Russia-collusion hoax — was all but laughed out of court in a recentWisconsinelection integrity case.
D.C.-based Elias Law Group, founded by former Clinton campaign and Democrat National Committee lawyer Marc Elias, broughta “novel” absentee ballot complaintagainst the state that an Obama-appointed judge called“head-scratching.”
In dismissing the lawsuit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission, U.S District Court Chief Judge James D. Peterson summarily rejected the leftist law group’s outlandish claim that a state law requiring aU.S. citizen witnessand sign an absentee voter’s ballot is aviolation of voting and civil rights.
‘Absurd’ Interpretation
In a 37-page ruling, Peterson railed against thecomplaint’s core argument, concluding that “the most obvious problem with plaintiffs’ interpretation is that itsimply does not make any sense.”
“The absurd results to which plaintiffs’ interpretation would lead are reason enough to reject that interpretation. But the text, purpose, and history of [Wisconsin Statute] § 6.87 also support an interpretation that a witness is required to certify only the statements about the process of preparing the ballot,” Peterson wrote of the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
“It is plaintiffs’ interpretation that leads to head-scratching results,” the federal judge wrote.
The Elias Law Group, practitioners of unbridled leftist lawfare,represent four Wisconsin residentswho “wish to vote by absentee ballot in the 2024 election,but they do not want to complywith the witness requirement,” according to the lawsuit. They insist the process of asking any U.S. citizen to witness them vote and to sign their absentee ballots “is difficult or inconvenient for them.”
“They contend that the requirement violates two federal statutes, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and they seek to permanently enjoin enforcement of the requirement,” Peterson writes in his ruling.
Basic Requirements
The statute requires absentee voters to certify on their ballot envelopes that they are residents of the district or ward in which they are voting, that they reside in the state and are entitled to vote, and that they are “unable or unwilling to appear at the polling place … on election day.” The law also requires the voter to certify that he followed the process for preparing the absentee ballot.
Witnesses are required to certify that they are U.S. citizensand that thevoting procedures were executed as stated. They must also affirm that they “did not solicit or advise the elector to vote for or against any candidate or measure.”
Pretty simple. Not much of a burden. And as Peterson notes, the law is “intended to serve legitimate and important purposes, such as deterring voter fraud, undue influence, and ballot harvesting.”
But the folks at theElias Law Group see the witness provision as an affront to civil rights. One of the plaintiffs, Anna Haas, “plans to be traveling overseas around the time of the November 2024 election.” She won’t have a U.S. citizen with her, so who will witness and sign her absentee ballot?! Well, any U.S. citizen traveling abroad could, or Haas could submit her ballot up to two weeks in advance, as Peterson notes. Plaintiff Anna Poi attends college in Minnesota.Poi prefers to use another Wisconsin voter as her witnessso that she “will be able to locate and rely on the witness if it becomes necessary to cure the certificate.”
Putting aside theplaintiffs’ laughable “burdens,” Peterson wrote that these poor, unfortunate souls “have not shown that either the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits a state from requiring absentee voters to prepare their ballot in front of a witness.
HTTPS://THEFEDERALIST.COM/2024/05/15/OBAMA-APPOINTED-JUDGE-SMACKS-DOWN-MARC-ELIAS-ELECTION-LAWFARE/
2/2
‘Inconsistent with the Law’
But it was the lawfare attorneys’ bizarre reading of the state’s absentee voting law that really had the federal judge scratching his head. Elias’ legal dream team argued that the statute requires a witness to do more than ensure that the voter followed procedure. According to their expanded interpretation, a witness would have to “certify that the voter is eligible to vote.”
“But that interpretation is inconsistent with the text and purpose of the statute, and it is inconsistent with how the law has been interpreted since it was enacted,” Peterson wrote.
TheElias Law Group’s interpretation, according to the ruling, would effectively force the witness to be a private investigator, determining the voter’s “age,residence, citizenship, criminal history, whether the voter is unable or unwilling to vote in person, whether the voter has voted at another location or is planning to do so, whether the voter is capable of understanding the objective of the voting process, whether the voter is under a guardianship, and, if so, whether a court has determined that the voter is competent.”
That’s not what the law asks, and an attorney who puts the law before politics would know that.
“Plaintiffs’ expansive interpretation of the law would lead to arbitrary restrictions on states’ authority to regulate elections and threaten any requirement on a voter to provide information on a ballot or related document, including a signature requirement or Wisconsin’s requirement that an absentee voter certify that he or she is not voting at another location,” Peterson wrote in his smackdown of the Elias attorneys’ absurd legal argument.
“Plaintiffs have not identified any reason why Congress would have restricted states in the way plaintiffs propose.”
With that, the judge directed the clerk to close the case.
Russia Hoax Architect
It’s what you might expect from a firm“committed to helping Democrats win” and headed by one of the chief architectsof the Russia-collusion hoax.
Marc Elias and his fellow Democrat election deniers insisted the 2016 election, in which Republican Donald Trump won the presidency, was rigged — thanks to supposed Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. They were so committed to that concept that they paid for and pushed a Russian-sourced dossier accusing Trump and his allies of all manner of corruption. But the dossier turned out to be phony opposition research, paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC she controlled. That didn’t stop Elias and crew from peddling it to a willing deep state and a hungry accomplice media which employed the hoax to try to take down a president they loathed.
“The legal mastermind probably most responsible for the leftist push to subvert our democracy, overturn elections, and destroy election integrity is Marc E. Elias,” wrote John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky in their 2021 book Our Broken Elections. Elias “has grown astoundingly wealthy representing Democratic candidates, political action committees, and party organizations” and “seems to have a monopoly on the Democratic political machine.”
It was Elias, as a partner with Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, who hired Fusion GPS to churn the dirt on her opponent.
“Fusion went on to solicit former MI6 agent Christopher Steele to create the infamous Steele dossier, which contained several salacious and since-debunked claims about Trump and his alleged ties to Russia,” Just The News reported in a pieceheadlined, “How a top Democrat lawyer undermined both sides’ confidence in U.S. elections.”
Eight years later, Elias’ law group is engaged in lawfare to rig election lawsin Democrats’ favor around the country, spending millions to weaken election integrity statutes in advance of November’s rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
HTTPS://THEFEDERALIST.COM/2024/05/15/OBAMA-APPOINTED-JUDGE-SMACKS-DOWN-MARC-ELIAS-ELECTION-LAWFARE/
Steve Bannon prison sentence would only ‘strengthen’ MAGA base: Attorney
Kaelan Deese May 16, 2024
Former Trump administration adviser and War Room podcast host Steve Bannon could soon find himself behind bars for his contempt of Congress conviction, a dire possibility his attorney said would only “strengthen” the former president’s base.
The Justice Department requested this week that the judge overseeing Bannon’s criminal contempt case start his four-month prison sentence after an appeals court last week upheld his conviction. Bannon’s attorney David Schoen told the Washington Examiner on Wednesday thefederal government’s request “reflects a completely political agenda.”
“It should tremendously strengthen the base,” Schoen said, adding that Bannon is willing to fight the case up to the Supreme Court.“It is unprecedented to prosecute such a case and now to try to send him to prison without having to prove any criminal intent.”
Bannon, 70, was convicted in 2022 for failing to appear for a deposition ordered by the now-defunct Jan. 6 committee, as well as refusing to turn over documents the committee subpoenaed. His legal team appealed, and a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld his contempt conviction on May 10.
Now,DOJ prosecutors say there is no legal basisfor U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, Bannon’s trial court judge, tocontinue delaying his prison sentence.
Bannon said he was “shocked they want to silence the voice of MAGA” in response to the threat of prison time.
The one-time adviser to former President Donald Trump is a luminary for his base. The War Room podcast is considered an influential beacon for Republicans across the country, ranking in the top 40 podcasts in the “News” category for Apple Podcasts. A four-month prison sentence for Bannon in the heat of the 2024 election season would bring a marked change to the daily War Room show that draws hundreds of thousands of viewers each month.
For example, Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI) scolded House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) for holding a hearing on Wednesday in defense of Trump amid the former president’s criminal hush money trial, blaming Bannon and Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, among others, for pushing Jordan to hold the hearing.
“We’re here at the beck and call of Trump fanatics and talking heads on cable and internet talk shows in the MAGA world who, like Bartiromo and Bannon, have goaded this committee to act,” Plaskett said.
Article III Project founder Mike Davis, a frequent War Roomguest and former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, told the Washington Examinerthat any prison time would “turn Bannon into a martyr.”
“Biden and these Biden Democrats are trying to illegally gag President Trump in a courtroom, and they’re trying to throw his most effective outside voice, Steve Bannon, in prison before the election,” Davis said.
The latest legal blow to Bannon followed a decision last month against former Trump adviser Peter Navarro, who is serving a four-month prison sentence in Florida for failing to comply with a subpoena from the decommissioned Jan. 6 committee as well.
Lawyers for Bannon initially argued at the trial court that his testimony was protected by Trump’s claim of executive privilege, but the DOJ argued that claim did not stand to muster because Trump fired Bannon from the White House in 2017.Schoen said they would seek a rehearing at the D.C. Circuit before all 11 judges, noting the case raises “important criminal law” questions, including advice of counsel and separation of powers matters.
Bannon’s Washington trial court judge, Nichols, a Trump appointee, cited a long-standing court decision called Licavoli in restricting Bannon from using an “advice of counsel” defense. Nichols said =Bannon’s appeal “raises a substantial question of law that is likely to result in a reversal or an order for a new trial==.”
But the D.C. Circuit ruled that “defense is no defense at all.” Bannon failed to “clear a high bar” in order to divert from that long-standing precedent, the panel said.
Nichols ordered Bannon to respond to prosecutors’ motion to modify his condition of release by May 20, and with a request for a rehearing before the appeals court and the remaining potential for him to seek Supreme Court relief, Bannon is unlikely to have to report to prison immediately.
“We don’t send people to jail without some finding of a belief that what he was doing was wrong,”Schoen said.
https://12ft.io/proxy
Supreme Court lets CFPB funding
By Amy Howe May 16, 20241/2
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the structure used to fund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the federal agency tasked with enforcing consumer finance laws. By a vote of 7-2, the justices reversed a decision by a federal appeals court in Louisiana, which had ruled thatthe agency’s funding violates the Constitution because it comes from the Federal Reserve rather than through the congressional appropriations process.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, in a decision that relied heavily on both the text of the Constitution and early English and U.S. history.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, in an opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. He offered a dueling interpretation of history that he suggested, leads to theconclusion that the CFPB’s funding scheme “blatantly attempts to circumvent the Constitution.”
The case was one of several on the court’s docket this term involving the division of authority between the three branches of government, as well as the power of administrative agencies. It began as a challenge by two industry groups to a “payday lending” rule that the agency issued in 2017. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected their argument that the rule violated the federal laws governing administrative agencies.
But the court of appeals agreed with the groups that theagency’s funding structure – which was intended to foster its independence – is inconsistent with Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which instructs that “[n]o money shall be withdrawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” In fact, the 5th Circuit concluded, theCFPB’s funding is “double-insulated” from Congress’s powerunder the appropriations clause, because the agency not only receives its funding from the Federal Reserve, but it (rather than Congress) determines the amount of that funding, by requesting the amount that the CFPB director deems “reasonably necessary to carry out” the bureau’s duties.
In a 22-page opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Thomas explained that when the Constitution was ratified in the late 18th century, “appropriations were understood as a legislative means of authorizing expenditure from a source of public funds for designated purposes.”
That understanding, Thomas continued, is supported by both early English history and early American history in the years leading up to the ratification of the Constitution. And although “appropriations needed to designate particular revenue for identified purposes,” Thomas observed, legislatures in that era otherwise “exercised a wide range of discretion.”
That practice also continued in the years immediately following the ratification of the Constitution, Thomas added – for example, with Congress allocating funding for some purposes up to certain amounts and allowing other federal agencies (such as the Customs Service and the Post Office) to fund themselves through the money that they collected.
The CFPB’s funding scheme falls squarely within this definition of a congressional “appropriation,” Thomas concluded: Congress specified the source – the Federal Reserve – from which the CFPB can draw its funding, and it indicated how the CFPB is supposed to use that funding. The court therefore reversed the 5th Circuit’s decision striking down as unconstitutional the CFPB’s funding mechanism.
Although she joined the Thomas opinion for the court, Kagan also wrote separately – in a five-page opinion joined by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett – that looked at appropriations through a broader historical lens than the Thomas opinion.
Kagan agreed that the “CFPB’s funding scheme, if transplanted back to the late-18th century, would have fit right now.” However, she emphasized, “the same would have been true at any other time in our Nation’s history.” She described a “continuing tradition” in which “Congress has created a variety of mechanisms to pay for government operations.” Even if there was no “exact replica” for the CFPB in U.S. history, she stressed, “its essentials are nothing new. And it was devised more than two centuries into an unbroken congressional practice, beginning at the beginning, of innovation and adaptation in appropriating funds. The way our Government has actually worked, over our entire experience, thus provides another reason to uphold Congress’s decision about how to fund the CFPB.”..
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/05/supreme-court-lets-cfpb-funding-stand/
2/2
By contrast, Jackson would have taken a narrower approach. In her own concurrence she wrote that she would have held that the CFPB’s funding scheme meets the “minimal requirements” of the appropriations clause, without more. “Indeed,” she suggested, “there are good reasons to go no further” – specifically, respect for the Constitution’s allocation of powers among the three branches of government. Congress decided to fund the CFPB outside the normal appropriations process, she stressed, because it wanted to insulate the bureau from “the risk that powerful regulated entities might capture” that process. The judicial branch should not, she contended, now second-guess Congress’s decisions “about how to respond to a pressing national concern.”
In his dissenting opinion, Alito rejected Thomas’ recounting of history, arguing that the drafters of the Constitution “would be shocked, even horrified, by” the CFPB’s funding scheme. Offering his own detailed version of history, Alito concluded that “centuries of historical practice show that theAppropriations Clause demands legislative control over the source and disposition of the money used to finance Government operations and projects.”
But theCFPB’s “unprecedented combination of funding features,” Alito wrote, “affords it the very kind of financial independence that the Appropriations Clause was designed to prevent. It is not an exaggeration to say that the CFPB enjoys a degree of financial autonomy that a Stuart king would envy.”
And thatautonomy, Alito continued,“has real-world consequences.” Alitonoted several “major” changes to consumer protection law that the CFPB has recently announced, including guidance indicating that financialinstitutions should not deny credit to consumers based on their immigration status, as well as aproposed rulemaking to cap overdraft fees and remove medical bills from credit reports. “These may or may not be wise policies,” Alito concluded, “but Congress did not specifically authorize any of them, and if the CFPB’s financing scheme is sustained,Congress cannot control or monitor the CFPB’s use of fundsto implement such changes.”
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/05/supreme-court-lets-cfpb-funding-stand/
3 North Koreans infiltrated US companies in 'staggering' alleged telework fraud: DOJ
Three North Korean workers and a U.S. citizen are charged in the indictment.
ByAlexander Mallin
May 16, 2024, 1:16 PM
The Justice Department on Thursday unsealed an indictment charging three North Korean workers and a United States citizen with allegedly engaging in "staggering fraud" through a complex scheme wherethey secured illicit work with a number of U.S. companies and government agencies.
The indictment against the North Korean IT workers using the aliases Jiho Han, Chunji Jin and Haoran Xu alleges thegroup used fraudulent identities belonging to 60 real Americansto secure telework positionsbetween October 2020 and 2023that ultimatelygenerated nearly $7 millionin profits for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Prosecutors further allege the group was assisted byU.S. national Christina Chapmanin their efforts to obtain remote work positions, who theyaccuse of stationing laptops belonging to U.S. companies at various residences that the North Koreanswere then able to access. She also allegedly received paychecks for the group and forged signatures of the intended beneficiaries in order to transfer the funds into her bank, later transferring the funds to the North Koreans while charging them monthly fees for her services, the indictment alleges.
"The conspiracy perpetrated a staggering fraud on a multitude of industries, at the expense of generally unknowing U.S. companies and persons," the indictment read."It impacted more than 300 U.S. companies, compromised the identities of U.S. persons, caused false information to be conveyed to DHS [Department Of Homeland Security] on more than 100 occasions, created false tax liabilities for more than 35 U.S. persons==, and resulted in at least $6.8 million of revenue for the overseas IT workers."
Included among the companies allegedly defrauded in the schemeare a "top-5 national television network and media company, apremier Silicon Valley technologycompany, anaerospace and defensemanufacturer, an iconicAmerican car manufacturer, a high-end retail chain, andone of the most recognizable media and entertainment companiesin the world, all of which were Fortune 500 companies," according to the indictment.
The workers also allegedlyattempted to gain employment and access to information at two unnamed U.S. government agencieson three different occasions, according to the indictment, though those attempts were identified and thwarted.
The three North Koreans are still at large, according to the DOJ. Chapman was arrested Wednesday in Arizona, according to a release from the Justice Department. She did not immediately have an attorney listed for her.
The State Department announced in a statement Thursday it is offering a reward of up to $5 million for information on the IT workers and the full-scale disruption of their scheme.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-unseals-indictment-alleging-staggering-fraud-north-koreans-telework-scheme/story?id=110304278
(They are Still Pushing Bugs)
'Disgust factor' must be overcome if planet-friendly insect food to become mainstream
Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:00 AM EDT
The "disgust factor" must be overcome if insect-based foods are to become mainstream, according to a study.
Insects can be high in protein and making them more acceptable could help cut the high greenhouse gas emissions that come from farming cattle.
There are also potential benefits for cutting obesity and researchers say the idea of farming insects is gaining more attention.
Hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Africa and Latin America are estimated to already eat insects to some degree.
There are hopes Western attitudes could shift over time, perhaps in a similar way that food such as sushi has become mainstream. (NO WE WILL NOT EAT THE BUGS)
"Insects are a potentially rich source of protein and micro-nutrients and could help provide a solution to the double burden of obesity and undernutrition," said study lead Dr Lauren McGale, from Edge Hill University in Lancashire.
"Some insect proteins, such as ground crickets or freeze-dried mealworms, are cheaper and easier to farm, often lower in fat and have a lower environmental impact than traditional livestock."
However, most people are still very reluctant due to preconceptions over taste and appearance.
But the study also found they were significantly more likely to give insects a go if they are ground into a powder.
"This has been done successfully with rice productsfortified with cricket or locust flours in other parts of the world," said co-author Dr Maxine Sharps from De Montfort University. (Check the ingredients of what you buy.)
Only 13% of the 603 people questioned in the UK study said they would be willing to regularly eat insect food.
Some 47% said they wouldn't eat it regularly, and 40% were unsure.
More than 82% of people expected insect food to be crunchy, 64.6% salty, and 62.4% bitter.
Only 24% said they expected to like the flavour, with just 14.1% believing insect food would look appetising.
Younger people also appeared more squeamish - and each year younger was associated with a 2% increase in saying "no" to the idea.
"The disgust factor is one of most important challenges to be overcome," said Dr Sharps.
"After all, there may be eventually no choice with climate change and projected global population growth."(Fuck Off Fuckers)
The study's findings are being presented at this week's European Congress on Obesity (ECO) in Venice.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/disgust-factor-must-overcome-planet-155500757.html
HHS Becerra — Hospitals that oppose transgender mutilation surgery will lose federal funding.
HHS director Becerra admits that hospitals with religious objections to transgender surgery on adults and children will lose federal funding.
https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1791287188929364222
Harnwell: 35 Days Before He Was Shot, The Slovak Premier Predicted His Own Attempted Assassination
4:37
A month before he was almost assassinated, Robert Fico, the Slovak prime minister, specifically called out the media for its urging the “progressive voter” to engage in “vulgar and aggressive” behaviour. The Slovak premier added this recklessness would end with a senior government politician getting killed.
I highlight this because everything Fico said about the tense political situation in Slovakia is also true about the US. Donald Trump, just like Robert Fico, is equally dehumanised as a “monster”. The MSM knows what it’s doing. It wants some crazy loner with a gun to respond to its dog whistle. They want Trump dead too.
They also discuss the portrait if King of EnglandEither Satan painted it or Satan used the artist
https://rumble.com/embed/v4t5cgx/?pub=4
Joe Allen Discusses The Demonic King Charles Portrait
8:49
https://rumble.com/embed/v4t5bhb/?pub=4
Natalie Winters: The Walls Are Closing Are Closing In On Fauci And Collins
12:03
https://rumble.com/embed/v4t6h99/?pub=4