Connect with us

Politics

Last Week In Lawfare Land: Jury Selection, Dueling Schedules, And A Big SCOTUS Case

Published

on

As the November 2024 election quickly approaches, the lawfare crusade against former President Donald Trump is now entering the trial phase. On Monday, April 15, the first criminal trial of President Trump began in New York City.  This will likely soon be followed by trials in Florida and, potentially, in Washington D.C. Along with criminal crusades, President Trump is also battling Attorney General Letitia James’s $454 million civil fraud case on appeal. 

Here’s the latest information you need to know about each case.

Read our previous installments here.

Manhattan, New York: Prosecution by DA Alvin Bragg for NDA Payment

How we got here: In this New York state criminal case, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged former President Donald Trump in April 2023 with 34 felony charges for alleged falsification of business records. Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen paid pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election as part of a nondisclosure agreement in which she agreed not to publicize her claims that she had an affair with Trump (who denies the allegations). Nondisclosure agreements are not illegal, but Bragg claims Trump concealed the payment to help his 2016 election chances and in doing so was concealing a “crime.”

Latest developments: The trial began on Monday, April 15. Jury selection was completed on Thursday, April 19. There are a total of 12 selected jurors who will decide President Trump’s fate in this case. The impartiality of the jury is already questionable, as Juror 11 has stated, “I don’t like

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

Politics

U.S. Government Helps Pro-Ukraine Media Spread Propaganda And Silence American Critics

Published

on

Ukraine’s American-backed fight against Russia is being waged not only in the blood-soaked trenches of the Donbas region but also on what military planners call the cognitive battlefield — to win hearts and minds.

A sprawling constellation of media outlets organized with substantial funding and direction from the U.S. government has not just worked to counter Russian propaganda but has supported strong censorship laws and shutdowns of dissident outlets, disseminated disinformation of its own, and sought to silence critics of the war, including many American citizens.

Economist Jeffrey Sachs, commentator Tucker Carlson, journalist Glenn Greenwald, and University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer are among the critics on both the left and the right who have been cast as part of a “network of Russian propaganda.”

But the figures targeted by the Ukrainian watchdog groups are hardly Kremlin agents. They simply have forcefully criticized dominant narratives about the war.

Sachs is a highly respected international development expert who has angered Ukrainian officials over his repeated calls for a diplomatic solution to the current military conflict. Last November, he gave a speech at the United Nations calling for a negotiated peace.

Mearsheimer has written extensively on international relations and is a skeptic of NATO expansion. He predicted that Western efforts to militarize Ukraine would lead to a Russian invasion.

Greenwald is a Pulitzer Prize-winning independent journalist who has criticized not just war coverage but media dynamics that suppress voices that run counter to U.S. narratives.

“What they mean when they demand censorship of ‘pro-Russia propaganda’ is anything that questions

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

Continue Reading

Politics

Democrats’ Election Games Have One Thing In Common: Shifting Power From Voters To Party Bosses

Published

on

Just about every election cycle, Democrats spring a new voting scheme on unsuspecting voters, each one more complicated than the last, with the predictable result of confusing voters and reducing confidence in the eventual results. This is all by design. Instead of earning voters’ loyalty, leftists would rather gain or maintain power by manipulating the election process however possible.

Control by Party Bosses

An egregious example of this took place earlier this year in New Hampshire, where the office of the state attorney general ended up issuing a cease-and-desist order to Democratic National Committee (DNC) officials for purportedly violating state voter suppression laws. Party bosses, who wanted South Carolina to be the first Democrat primary in the nation, bumped the presidential primaries in New Hampshire and Iowa down on the calendar after claiming the latter’s caucuses were “too white and too undemocratic.” When New Hampshire went forward with a January primary anyway, in accordance with state law, the DNC instructed the state party to tell voters their votes would be “meaningless” if they voted on Jan. 23, rather than on the DNC’s preferred primary date later in the year.

According to The Federalist, “in his cease-and-desist order to the DNC, Assistant Attorney General Brendan O’Donnell underscored how ‘[f]alsely telling New Hampshire voters that a New Hampshire election is ‘meaningless’ violates New Hampshire voter suppression laws,’ and further ordered the organization to stop engaging in such ‘unlawful’ conduct.”

On Saturday, New Hampshire Democrats fell in line with the DNC bosses by holding a

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

Continue Reading

Politics

Impeachment ‘Whistleblower’ Knew Of Biden-Ukraine Corruption Trump Wanted Probed

Published

on

The “whistleblower” who sparked Donald Trump’s first impeachment was deeply involved in the political maneuverings behind Biden-family business schemes in Ukraine that Trump wanted probed, newly obtained emails from former Vice President Joe Biden’s office reveal.

In 2019, then-National Intelligence Council analyst Eric Ciaramella touched off a political firestorm when he anonymously accused Trump of linking military aid for Ukraine to a demand for an investigation into alleged Biden corruption in that country.

But four years earlier, while working as a national security analyst attached to then-Vice President Joe Biden’s office, Ciaramella was a close adviser when Biden threatened to cut off U.S. aid to Ukraine unless it fired its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Ukraine-based Burisma Holdings. At the time, the corruption-riddled energy giant was paying Biden’s son Hunter millions of dollars.

Those payments — along with other evidence tying Joe Biden to his family’s business dealings — received little attention in 2019 as Ciaramella accused Trump of a corrupt quid pro quo. Neither did subsequent evidence indicating that Hunter Biden’s associates had identified Shokin as a “key target.” These matters are now part of the House impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

“It now seems there was material evidence that would have been used at the impeachment trial [to exonerate Trump],” said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who has testified as an expert witness in the ongoing Biden impeachment inquiry. “Trump was alleging there was a conflict of interest with the Bidens, and the evidence

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

Continue Reading

Trending