Connect with us

Politics

Trump Attorneys Argue ‘Vindictive’ Special Counsel Indictment Criminalizes Speech

Published

on

On Oct. 23, attorneys filed several motions to dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith’s unprecedented case attempting to put former President Donald Trump in jail for up to 35 years. The three new motions filed at 9:14 p.m. Monday move to dismiss the case on both statutory and constitutional grounds and allege “selective and vindictive prosecution” before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, a foreign-born Obama appointee who has publicly expressed personal animus against Trump and his supporters and refused to recuse herself from the case.

The filing appears to set up the case for appeal to the Supreme Court. Monday’s motion to dismiss based on constitutional grounds argues the entirety of Smith’s case against Trump is based on prosecuting the latter’s speech. Free speech is a constitutionally secured American right.

Smith’s August indictment alleged Trump’s disputes with the reliability of the 2020 election amount to criminal conspiracies and obstructions.

“Additionally, as the United States Senate has previously tried and acquitted President Trump for charges arising from the same course of conduct alleged in the indictment, the impeachment and double jeopardy clauses both bar retrial before this Court and require dismissal,” says the constitutional dismissal motion. “Finally, because of our country’s longstanding tradition of forceful political advocacy regarding perceived fraud and irregularities in numerous Presidential elections, President Trump lacked fair notice that his advocacy in this instance could be criminalized. Thus, the Court should dismiss the indictment under the Due Process clause as well.”

The motion quotes multiple Supreme Court cases, including

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Politics

Leftist ‘Voter Guide’ Group Pushes Its Way Into Universities

Published

on

A left-wing “voter guide” group is contacting professors, attempting to place biased content in universities. The group claims its content is “nonpartisan.”

“We have made it simple to incorporate our guides and resources into your existing curriculum,” wrote Claire Adams, campus and youth programs director for Guides.Vote, in an email to a professor, obtained by The Federalist. “We hope you’ll check out our guides and use our resources to help your students vote.”

Adams apparently emailed college professors on Sept. 12, pitching content from Guides.Vote for use in the classroom. Youth Service America is the “fiscal host for the Guides.Vote initiative,” YSA Vice President of Partnerships Michael Minks told The Federalist. According to InfluenceWatch, YSA is a left-wing group that mobilizes youth to “influence elections.”

“With Higher Education in mind, our FREE resources have been created to be easily embedded in Canvas, or any other LMS [Learning Management System],” Adams wrote. “We would love to support you, your students, and your campus voter engagement efforts.”

She advertised “printable guides” and an “interactive quiz where students can guess where the presidential candidates really stand.” 

While the group claims its voter resources are “nonpartisan,” the guides indicate a clear bias in favor of left-wing candidates.

Promoting Democrat Candidates

Guides.Vote offers a guide contrasting former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris for November’s election.

One issue is “How to ensure effectiveness and fairness in law enforcement?”

The group said Trump thinks “police are ‘under siege.’ Cut back active federal oversight of

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Election Integrity Advocates Can Inspect South Carolina Voter Rolls, Federal Judge Rules

Published

on

A federal judge in South Carolina ruled Wednesday that an election integrity advocacy organization has the right to review the state’s voter rolls for ineligible voting.

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr., an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the South Carolina State Election Commission (SEC) could not block the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) from reviewing the Palmetto State’s voter rolls, despite it being an out-of-state organization.

Because voter rolls are a matter of public information under federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), the SEC could not block PILF from reviewing its Statewide Voter Registration List (SVRL), the court’s opinion explained.

“South Carolina’s prohibition on the distribution of the SVRL to only eligible South Carolina voters conflicts with the NVRA’s mandate that all records concerning maintenance and accuracy activities be made available for ‘public inspection,’” Anderson wrote. “Because adherence to South Carolina law would frustrate application of the Federal mandate, the state law must yield.”

The SEC, South Carolina’s executive agency responsible for administering elections, argued that state law would prohibit PILF from obtaining the voter records because the group is not a “qualified elector” in South Carolina. It therefore blocked PILF’s initial request for the data in February.

PILF is not a South Carolina voter, but “describes itself as a ‘public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity’ which ‘protects the right to vote and preserves the Constitutional framework of American elections through litigation, investigation, research, and education,’” the opinion noted.

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. To Appeal Decision Letting Michigan’s Secretary Of State Keep Him On The Ballot

Published

on

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said today he will appeal a federal court’s decision allowing Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, to keep him on the ballot despite his withdrawal from the presidential race. 

Judge Denise Hood, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, denied Kennedy’s attempt Wednesday to keep Benson from adding him to the ballot. According to The Detroit News, Kennedy notified Hood today that he would be appealing the ruling to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kennedy announced last month he would drop out of the race, withdrawing his name from the ballot in swing states like Michigan in hopes of helping former President Donald Trump defeat Vice President Kamala Harris. 

But Benson refused to take Kennedy off the ballot, citing concerns that the Natural Law Party — with which Kennedy was running — could not nominate another candidate before November, as The Federalist previously reported. Since then, Kennedy and Benson have been battling in court. Similar obstacles to Kennedy’s withdrawal have cropped up in other states. 

“The harm incurred by Defendant, the Natural Law Party, and Michigan voters outweighs that felt by Plaintiff if he is prohibited from withdrawing,” Hood wrote in the latest ruling. “Plaintiff’s motion is denied.”

Michigan is approaching election deadlines. According to the Detroit Free Press, county clerks must deliver absentee ballots to local clerks by Saturday, and “absentee ballots must be available to the general public by next Thursday.”

The Ruling

Kennedy asked the

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending