Alvin Bragg agrees to appear before House Judiciary following Trump sentencingRebecca Beitsch Tue, June 11, 2024 at 11:24 AM EDT

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) has agreed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee onJuly 12, the day after former President Trump’s sentencing following his conviction in New York.

One of the top prosecutors in the case, Matthew Colangelo, will also appear before the panel. The hearing will be a major moment for the House GOP’s Oversight of those responsible for bringing charges against Trump.

Bragg’s appearance following the hush money trial makes him thefirst such prosecutor to appear before the panelafter others who have filed charges against Trump have largely rebuffed demands from Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), saying the invitations amount to inappropriate efforts to interfere in their ongoing investigations.

Bragg agreed to the invitation only after the conclusion of Trump’s trial, delaying his appearance by about a month as he said it would be improper to speak publicly on the case outside of a courtroom before a judge has fully weighed punishment for the former president.

“The Manhattan D.A.’s Office is proud to play a crucial role in upholding and enforcing the rule of law for the people of New York. It undermines the rule of law to spread dangerous misinformation, baseless claims, and conspiracy theories following the jury’s return of a full-count felony conviction in People v. Trump,” Bragg’s office said in a statement.

“Nonetheless, we respect our government institutions and plan to appear voluntarily before the subcommittee after sentencing.”

Colangelo’s appearance is also notable, as the House Judiciary Committee has demanded information about him from multiple entities, including the Justice Department. Colangelo, who worked as a prosecutor in New York, including on cases involving the Trump family, worked at the Justice Department before returning to New York to work for Bragg’s team. Colangelo gave the opening arguments during Trump’s trial.

Jordan plans to still hold a hearing on the case Thursday — the original date he asked for Bragg to appear — and it will include testimony from those not involved in the trial, such as Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R).The agreement for Bragg and Colangelo’s July testimony comes hours after theJustice Department told the committee it had done a “comprehensive” search of their records, failing to find any communications between the department and Bragg’s office.

The letter obtained by The Hill seeks to quash what Attorney General Merrick Garland has called a conspiracy theory floated by Republican lawmakers that federal prosecutors were in any way involved with Bragg’s decision to bring charges against Trump. “We found none,” Carlos Uriarte, the head of legislative affairs for the Justice Department, wrote of what resulted from their search.

“This is unsurprising. The District Attorney’s office is a separate entity from the Department. The Department does not supervise the work of the District Attorney’s office, does not approve its charging decisions, and does not try its cases. The Department has no control over the District Attorney, just as the District Attorney has no control over the Department. The Committee knows this.”

“Our extraordinary efforts to respond to your speculation should put it to rest,” he added later. (no one in the US believe anything the DOJ says, you have given no one rest, instead you hide and persecute the innocent)

While Trump allies have complained both about the prosecutor and judge involved in his trial, it was a jury agreed to by both prosecutors and Trump’s legal team that found him guilty on every single one of the 34 counts brought by Bragg.

Jurors agreed Trump falsified business records by concealing hush money payments made to an adult film star ahead of the 2016 election. (Based on the Judges illegal jury instructions, what were they supposed to do?)

https://news.yahoo.com/news/manhattan-da-trump-prosecutor-set-160927649.html

New docs show Bragg spent $1M on attorneys to address House probe of Trump case amid city budget cuts

Charles Creitz Tue, June 11, 2024 at 6:00 AM EDT·1/2

EXCLUSIVE: Findings from more than 100 pages of documents gleaned through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request revealed that the prosecutor in NY v. Trump spent $1 million to respond to congressional oversight of his prosecution at a time New York City officials were demanding across-the-board budget cuts.

Documents procured through litigation by the Oversight Project, a good-government transparency arm of the Heritage Foundation, showedManhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office sent an April 2023 interoffice memo announcing a $1 million appropriation for outside counsel.

According to the memo,the funds came from a 2019 settlement with a financial institution that was accused of illegally transacting with nations subject to U.S. sanctions.

"Due to this unanticipated need, $1,000,000 will be made available for this matter from the DANY Deficit Project under the UniCredit subfund," the memo read.

The document also referenced an attached "engagement letter" signed with the high-powered Los Angeles-based Gibson Dunn law firm, and the packet also included an approved waiver from the New York City Conflict of Interest Board to permit a Bragg counsel to participate in the case despite a familial connection to a Gibson Dunn attorney.

Another piece of the document tranche said Bragg indicated it would be in the best interests of the office to hire outside counsel to respond to congressional inquiry from Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and others at the time.

Of five law firms that were apparently solicited, only Gibson Dunn was immediately available, according to the findings.

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office has approved the use of funds received as part of the 2019 UniCredit settlement to be used toward retaining outside counsel tied to a congressional inquiry into the investigation and prosecution of a confidential investigation division case.

The email then references an attached engagement letter signed by Bragg with Gibson Dunn and documents referenced Bragg's office's awareness of the trio of House committees looking into his investigation of former President Trump.

On April 4, 2023, around the time of the actions indicated in the trove of documents, New York City Mayor Eric Adams issued a citywide directive to cut $1 billion over the following four years. New York did then and continues to face dueling crises of crime, slowing economic growth and a migrant influx.

All agencies were to enact plans to cut 4% from their budgets, according to a memo obtained by the New York Post at the time. By November, the budget cuts had affected school and library programs and somewhat lowered the rolls of the NYPD, according to the New York Times.

Thefindings of the FOIA request suggest Bragg should, instead of prosecuting Trump, be "arresting himself,"said attorney Mike Howell, the Oversight Project's executive director, in an interview with Fox News Digital.

"It speaks to the fact that Bragg had to go outside [the district attorney's office] for this sort of work; very similar to how he had to have [prosecutor Matthew] Colangelo come down from DOJ."

In an exchange with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., during a House hearing last week, Attorney General Merrick Garland repeatedly denied he or the Justice Department dispatched Colangelo to New York or had anything to do with the latter taking a prominent role in Trump's prosecution.

https://news.yahoo.com/news/manhattan-da-trump-prosecutor-set-160927649.html

>>21012123

2/2

Howell further criticized the timing of Bragg's $1 million allocation, saying it was done at a time when his city was "deteriorating into a third-world urban area."

"It shows the highest focus of this unique kind of ‘all-hands-on-deck’ approach as applied to President Trump, while they have just degeneracy, deviancy and crime in their streets," he said.

Howell said the documents his organization obtained are, however, only the first shoe likely to drop in the Oversight Project's focus on Bragg's office's behavior and that future FOIA hearings are on the docket in coming days and weeks.His one focus will be on alleged "voluminous communications" between Bragg's office and "Washington, D.C., political operatives"about which a hearing was held last Tuesday.

"You have [Adams] telling folks to cut back and focus on crime problems, and then you have a DA spending more and focusing on political persecution as New York City goes to hell,"he said.

The documents also depict an environment where the political left is expending much more resources to prosecute Trump than the right is to defend the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Howell said.

"I mean, they were willing to cut that check immediately to a high-priced law firm to dispense with the inquiries from Chairman Jordan, which they did. Chairman Jordan's office didn't really lay a glove on him."

However, as of Saturday, the Associated Press reported Bragg appeared to agree to testify before what the outlet predicted to be a "hostile" subcommittee hearing. The AP reported Jordan requested Bragg's presence at a June 13 hearing, but the prosecutor's office needed a new date and asked for more information on the "scope and purpose" of the hearing.

The outlet further predicted any hearing would take place beyond Trump's scheduled July sentencing.

One of Howell's hopesin his organization procuring the documents is that itwill lead Congress to double its efforts to fight ongoing "lawfare" on the left and offered one reported example that House Republicans could access "reserve funds" from the now-defunct House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack to appropriately resource such efforts.

Attorney Mike Davis, a former chief nominations counsel for Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who oversaw floor votes for such key nominations as Justice Brett Kavanaugh, called the findings a true "scandal."

"Instead of spending money fighting real crime in New York City, Alvin Bragg and Matthew Colangelo weaponized and politicized the DA's office to get Trump and line the pockets of their allies," said Davis, now president of the Article III Project, an organization coined from Article III of the Constitution that aims to forward originalism in its advice on federal judicial nominees.

Davis further criticized Bragg's office for hiring "one of the most expensive law firms in the world to fight a legitimate congressional subpoena."

Neither Bragg's office nor Gibson Dunn responded to requests for comment.

https://news.yahoo.com/news/manhattan-da-trump-prosecutor-set-160927649.html

(The house should get Howell and Davis advising them on these hearings, they have to do this right this time.)

Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas out of Olympics after losing legal battle

• Athlete said rules were ‘invalid and unlawful’

• World Aquatics: ‘Major step to protect women’s sport’

Sean Ingle

Wed 12 Jun 2024 12.00 EDT

The US swimmer Lia Thomas, who rose to global prominence after becoming the first transgender athlete to win a NCAA college title in March 2022, has lost a legal case against World Aquatics at the court of arbitration for sport – and with it any hopes of making next month’s Paris Olympics.

The 25-year-old also remains barred from swimming in the female category after failing to overturn rules introduced by swimming’s governing body in the summer of 2022, which prohibit anyone who has undergone “any part of male puberty” from the female category.

Thomas had argued that those rules should be declared “invalid and unlawful” as they were contrary to the Olympic charter and the World Aquatics constitution.

However, in a 24-page decision, the court concluded that Thomas was“simply not entitled to engage with eligibility to compete in WA competitions” as someone who was no longer a member of US swimming.

The news was welcomed by World Aquatics, who hailed it as “a major step forward in our efforts to protect women’s sport”.

“World Aquatics is dedicated to fostering an environment that promotes fairness, respect, and equal opportunities for athletes of all genders and we reaffirm this pledge,” it added.

World Aquatics introduced its new rules after Thomas beat Olympic silver medalist Emma Weyant by 1.75sec to win NCAA gold in the women’s 500-yard freestyle in 2022.

In a scientific document that informed its decision, it said swimmers such as Thomas retained significant physical advantages – in endurance, power, speed, strength and lung size– from undergoing male puberty, even after reducing their testosterone levels through medication.

While it is understood that World Aquatics was prepared to argue the merits of the scientific evidence at Cas, the hearing solely focused on whether Thomas, who is no longer a member of US swimming, was allowed to challenge its rules.

On Wednesday it ruled thatThomas had no standing to sue World Aquatics’ transgender policy, with a key paragraph stating: “The panel concludes that sincethe Athlete is not entitled to participate in ‘Elite Event’ within the meaning of USA Swimming Policy, let alone to compete in a WA competition, which occurs upon registration with WA prior to a competition or upon setting a performance which leads to a request for registration as WA world record, she is simply not entitled to engage with eligibility to compete in WA competitions.

“The policy and the operational requirements are simply not triggered by her current status.”

World Aquatics insists it is doing all it can be inclusive and has introduced an “open” category for transgender swimmers. However, plans to debut it at the Berlin World Cup last October were cancelled after no entries were received for any of the 50m and 100m races across all strokes, which were due to take place alongside male and female races.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jun/12/transgender-swimmer-lia-thomas-out-of-olympics-after-losing-legal-battle-swimming

>>21012146 Lying news is getting a comeuppance as they should have 10 years ago, they lie about everyone especially when the reporting is correct.

>>21012151 they are worth $68 million not $8 million

>>21012135notablethere lists are basically 'kill lists" for deranged people

Trump Virtual Interview With Probation Office Was 30 Minutes

Erik Larson and Stephanie Lai Mon, June 10, 2024 at 8:14 PM EDT·3

(Bloomberg) – Donald Trump was interviewed Monday by a New York probation officer whose sentencing report will help a judge decide how much time, if any, the former president will spend behind bars for falsifying business records, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The meeting lasted 30 minutes, and Trump joined virtually from his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida, said the person, who declined to be identified because the details of the interview aren’t public. Trump’s lead defense lawyer, Todd Blanche, also participated in the meeting, the person said.

Trump, 77, is scheduled to be sentenced July 11 after becoming the first former US president to be found guilty of a crime in a case brought last year by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump faces as long as four years in prison, though legal experts expect he’ll serve far less than that and may get probation only, due to his age and his status as a first-time offender.

“President Trump and his legal team are already taking necessary steps to challenge and defeat the lawless Manhattan DA case,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement.

Justice Juan Merchan, who oversaw the hush-money case, will use the probation report to help decide on the sentence. Trump’s lawyers, as well as prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office, will submit separate sentencing recommendations. It’ll be up to Merchan to decide how much weight to give each recommendation.

In New York, the probation office conducts pre-sentencing interviews with defendants who are convicted of felonies and serious misdemeanors. The officers typically examine the defendant’s criminal record, interview arresting officers, family members and victims. According to the New York court system’s website, the interview is “a chance for the defendant to try to make a good impression and explain why he or she deserves a lighter punishment.”

The sentence is due to be handed down in Manhattan just days before the Republican National Convention July 15-18, when Trump will officially accept his party’s nomination.

Bragg hasn’t indicated what kind of sentence he’ll recommend. It’s not unusual for prosecutors to suggest prison terms well below the maximum, especially for first-time offenders like Trump. Trump’s lawyers are likely to seek leniency.

Plans for the sentencing hearing next month are moving ahead even as Trump aims to overturn the verdict. The former president’s legal team has a June 13 deadline to file post-verdict motions. Trump’s team is expected to ask the judge to reexamine some aspects of the trial, with a likely focus on testimony by Bragg’s star witness, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

If Trump’s motions fail, the sentencing hearing will go ahead as planned. Once Trump is sentenced, he can begin a formal appeal of the verdict, which could take months to resolve.

President Joe Biden, who will face off against Trump in November, has assailed his rival as a “convicted felon” who poses a threat to US democracy if he is reelected. But the verdict has rallied Republicans behind Trump, who raised nearly $53 million in the 24 hours following the jury’s decision.

Trump spent the past several days campaigning and fundraising in California and Nevada, where his campaign took in $33.5 million, according to a person familiar with the events.

https://news.yahoo.com/news/trump-interviewed-virtually-york-probation-152136086.html

Citizen Free Press

@CitizenFreePres

House holds Merrick Garland in criminal contempt. The vote was 208-207.

https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1800946181582840256

In the second week of June, with more than two dozen opinions to go June 11, 2024 1/4

The justices will return to the bench on Thursday and Friday of this week to issue opinions in argued cases. Depending on exactly how you count them (for example, will the court eventually issue one or two opinions in the challenges to social media laws in Texas and Florida?), the court has somewhere around 28 decisions left to release before it begins its summer recess. Here, in the order in which they were argued, are brief summaries of each of the as-yet-undecided cases:

1. Vidal v. Elster (argued Nov. 1, 2023): Whether the refusal by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register a trademark, citing a provision of federal trademark law that prohibits the registration of a trademark that uses the name of another living person unless that person has given permission, violates the First Amendment when the trademark contains criticism of a government official or public figure. The question comes to the court in a dispute arising from Steve Elster’s efforts to register the phrase “Trump Too Small” – prompted by Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 reference to the “small hands” of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump – so that Elster could print and sell t-shirts bearing the phrase.

2.United States v. Rahimi(argued Nov. 7, 2023): Whether a federal law that bans the possession of guns by individuals who are the subject of domestic-violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment, which provides that “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The question comes to the court in the case of a Texas man who was the subject of a civil protective order after he dragged his then-girlfriend back to his car when she tried to leave after an argument. When the man, Zackey Rahimi, became a suspect in a series of shootings, police searched his home, where they found a rifle and a pistol – which he was specifically barred from having under the terms of the protective order.

3.SEC v. Jarkesy(argued Nov. 29, 2023): Whether the structure and enforcement powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission violate the Constitution. The case began as an administrative proceeding by the SEC against George Jarkesy, an investment adviser and the founder of a hedge fund. The SEC ruled that Jarkesy and his firm had committed securities fraud, and it ordered them to pay $300,000 in fines and nearly double that in repayments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed with Jarkesy and held that three different aspects of the SEC’s operations are unconstitutional.

4.Harrington v. Purdue Pharma(argued Dec. 4, 2023): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit was correct to approve a multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid painkiller OxyContin, that would release members of the Sackler family, which owned the company but did not declare bankruptcy, from any future liability for claims against them. The justices agreed last summer to put the bankruptcy plan on hold while it reviewed the challenge, brought by (among others) the federal government, to the plan’s legality. A bankruptcy judge originally approved the plan in 2021, reasoning that although the confirmation was a “bitter result” it was also the only way to provide funding for communities to address the problems caused by opioids.

5.Moore v. United States(argued Dec. 5, 2023): Whether a provision of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act known as the “mandatory repatriation tax,” which required U.S. taxpayers who owned shares in foreign corporations to pay a one-time tax on their share of the corporation’s earnings, violates the Constitution. The challenge to the tax was brought by a Washington State couple that owns shares in an Indian corporation that supplies small farmers with modern tools. The contended that the mandatory repatriation tax – which would raise their tax liability for 2017 by $15,000 – violates the Constitution’s apportionment clause, which requires

https://amylhowe.com/2024/06/11/in-the-second-week-of-june-with-more-than-two-dozen-opinions-to-go/

>>21012308

2/4

6.Campos-Chaves v. Garland(argued Jan. 8, 2024): Whether the federal government provided adequate notice of an immigration proceeding, allowing the immigration court to enter a deportation order when the non-citizen does not appear. Federal immigration law requires the government to provide a non-citizen with a “notice to appear” that must include (among other things) the time and place of the removal hearing. The specific question before the justices is whether the government satisfies its obligations to provide notice if it does not include all of the required information in a single document, but instead provides some information, such as the time and place of the proceeding, in a later document.

7.Office of the U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006(argued Jan. 9, 2024): When the Supreme Court held in 2022 that a federal law imposing higher fees on bankruptcy filers in 48 states is unconstitutional, what should the remedy for that constitutional violation be? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in this case agreed with the companies that the government should give the companies a refund, but the government contends instead that the correct remedy is to increase the fees for bankruptcy filers who had previously paid the lower fees.

8.Smith v. Arizona(argued Jan. 10, 2024): Whether the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him, allows prosecutors to use expert testimony about evidence – here, a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst who no longer worked at the lab and did not testify at trial – that was not itself admitted into evidence, on the grounds that the testifying expert was simply offering his own opinion and that the defendant could have subpoenaed the original analyst.

9.Relentless v. Department of Commerce&Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo(argued Jan. 17, 2024): Whether the Supreme Court should overrule or limit its 1984 decision inChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, in which it held that when a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of that law as long as it is reasonable. The question comes to the court in a challenge to a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service that requires the fishing industry to pay for the costs, estimated at $710 per day, of having observers on fishing boats to collect data about the boats’ catches.

10.Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System(argued Feb. 20, 2024): Whether the six-year statute of limitations to challenge an action by a federal agency begins to run when the agency issues the rule or instead when the plaintiff is actually injured. The question comes to the court in a challenge to a rule issued by the Federal Reserve in 2011 that caps debit-card processing fees. Because the truck stop challenging the rule did not open for business until 2018, it contends that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until it processed its first debit-card transaction that year.

11.Ohio v. EPA(argued Feb. 21, 2024): Whether the Supreme Court should temporarily block a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce air pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities while litigation continues. The case arises from the EPA’s interpretation of a law known as the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, which requires “upwind” states to reduce emissions that affect the air quality in “downwind” states.

12.Moody v. NetChoice & NetChoice v. Paxton(argued Feb. 26, 2024): Whether laws in Florida and Texas that seek to regulate how large social media companies likeFacebook and X control content posted on their sites violate the First Amendment. The two states passed the laws in 2021 in response to a belief that social media companies were censoring their users, especially those with conservative views. A federal appeals court in Atlanta blocked Florida from enforcing most of its law, while a different appeals court upheld the Texas law, although the Supreme Court put it on hold while the challenge by tech groups continued.

https://amylhowe.com/2024/06/11/in-the-second-week-of-june-with-more-than-two-dozen-opinions-to-go/

>>21012315

3/4

13.McIntosh v. United States(argued Feb. 27, 2024): Whether a district court can enter a criminal forfeiture order when the time limit specified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has already passed. In this case, the government did not submit a preliminary forfeiture order until more than two-and-a-half years after the defendant was sentenced.

14.Garland v. Cargill(argued Feb. 28, 2024):Whether a “bump stock” – an attachment that transforms a semiautomatic rifle into a fully automatic, assault-style weapon – is a “machinegun,” which is generally prohibited under federal law. The case is a challenge to a rule issued by the Trump administration in the wake of the 2017 mass shooting at a music festival in Las Vegas; a federal appeals court in Louisiana ruled that the definition of “machinegun” does not apply to bump stocks.

15.Murthy v. Missouri(argued March 18, 2024):Whether the federal government’s conduct transformed content-moderation decisions by private social media companies into government action and therefore violated the First Amendment, and whether the challengers have a legal right to bring their lawsuit. The plaintiffs in this case – two states with Republican attorneys general and several individuals whose social media posts were removed or downgraded – challenged the Biden administration’s efforts in 2021 to restrict misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine. They argued that the administration’s actions had violated social media users’ rights to free speech.

16.Diaz v. United States(argued March 19, 2024): Whether prosecutors in a drug-trafficking case can call a government witness to provide expert testimony to rebut a defendant’s contention that she did not know that she was carrying drugs. The question comes to the court in the case of a woman who was stopped at the U.S.-Mexico border with 28 kilograms of methamphetamine hidden in her car. She maintained that the car belonged to her boyfriend and that she didn’t know that the drugs were in it.

17.Gonzalez v. Trevino(argued March 20, 2024): What kinds of evidence must a plaintiff alleging that she was arrested in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment show to qualify for the exception outlined in Nieves v. Bartlett, which holds that although plaintiffs must generally show that police did not have probable cause to arrest them, they can also show that they were arrested when others who had not been engaged in protected speech would not have been. The question comes to the court in the case of a 76-year-old Texas woman who was arrested after she – accidentally, she claims – picked up a petition that she had initiated and placed it in her binder after a long meeting. She was charged with violating a state law that prohibits tampering with government records.

18.Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado(argued March 20, 2024): The latest chapter in a long-running water dispute over the apportionment of the waters of the Rio Grande, and in particular efforts by Texas and New Mexico to settle the dispute over the objections of the federal government.

19.Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine(argued March 26, 2024): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit correctly rolled back actions by the FDA in 2016 and 2021 that increased access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions in the United States, and whether the groups and physicians challenging the FDA’s actions have a legal right to bring their challenge.

20.Erlinger v. United States(argued March 27, 2024): For purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, which imposes an enhanced sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm if the defendant has three convictions “committed on occasions different from one another,” should a jury or a judge decide whether the crimes occurred on different occasions? The question comes to the court in the case of an Indiana man who in 1991 pleaded guilty to four counts of burglary arising from four nonresidential burglaries that were charged together and that occurred in the same city over the course of a week.

https://amylhowe.com/2024/06/11/in-the-second-week-of-june-with-more-than-two-dozen-opinions-to-go/

>>21012320

In the second week of June, with more than two dozen opinions to goJune 11, 2024

https://amylhowe.com/2024/06/11/in-the-second-week-of-june-with-more-than-two-dozen-opinions-to-go/

Steve Bannon Basks In MSNBC's Freakout Over Impending AccountabilityMorning Joe lied everything Trump and others have said

13:58

https://rumble.com/embed/v4yv8x9/?pub=4

Bannon: "We Got The Receipts And We Wanna See The Impeachment Of Joe Biden And Then Criminal Charge"

5:23

https://rumble.com/embed/v4yv9wv/?pub=4

Mark Paoletta Explains Why The Left's Targeting Supreme Court Justices PubliclyThey are trying to get the conservative (Constitutional) out and never let the conservative side to be in power again. Democrats must own the court to own and destroy our country

10:54

https://rumble.com/embed/v4yvap7/?pub=4

Steve Bannon: "Paul Ryan Was The One That Set Up President Trump To Get Impeached"

5:52

https://rumble.com/embed/v4yvc14/?pub=4