Month: September 2023

Automakers are looking to finish the week with strength after it was announced on Thursday that the Biden administration would be making “up to $12 billion” available to retrofit facilities to make both EVs and hybrids.

The money will include $10 billion from a US Energy Department loan program for clean vehicles and an additional $3.5 billion in financing to expand domestic battery manufacturing, according to Bloomberg. 

The United Auto Workers, currently in negotiations with Detroit, has argued that a shift to EVs will cost the industry union jobs. US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said on Thursday that the funding would help Detroit retain workers.

However, we’ve seen this “bailout” business model to save jobs before – at banks and during Covid, to name two examples – and it always winds up turning into a company cash grab before ultimately firing workers regardless. The UAW will try to prevent such a situation from taking place as it negotiates.

UAW President Shawn Fain “cautiously” welcomed the news after warning earlier this month that the White House should not push an EV agenda if it means the loss of jobs in Detroit. 

Almost like the government should stay out of the auto industry as a whole, right? But that would make too much sense. 

“The EV transition must be a just transition that ensures auto workers have a place in the new economy,” Fain said this week. Meanwhile, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a Washington lobby group that represents most Detroit automakers, said this week the funding “will further advance the domestic automotive supply chain and globally competitive battery manufacturing platform that automakers have already made sizable investments.”

Instead, Bloomberg calls the move the Biden administration “doubling down on efforts to support carmakers’ transition to EVs”. In a statement this week, President Biden said: “This funding will help existing workers keep their jobs and have the first shot to fill new good jobs as the car industry transforms for future generations.”

The Biden administration continues to aim for half of all vehicles on the road being EVs by 2030. 

Authored by Mark Glennon via Wirepoints.org,

The modern left’s assault on free speech is perhaps the most terrifying element of the madness we have succumbed to for the simple reason that democracy is meaningless without it. The assault has been largely successful. Voices that should be heard are muzzled and, more insidiously, countless other voices are frightened into silence.

We see that suppression routinely.

Too often, readers here tell us of being intimidated into silence by the cancel mob, a mob now controlling much of our government. The iron boot of government on one’s throat is no small matter: Fear of the cost of litigating against a government intent on suppressing free speech is particularly intimidating.

That intimidation must come to an end. Help is often available – a resource you should prize.

A number of law firms specializing in free speech are now available, pro bono – free or at reduced cost. And they are winning, thanks to federal courts that still recognize the First Amendment right to free speech.

A Chicago company’s free speech case is an illustration.

Townstone Financial is a smallish, Chicago-based home mortgage originator. It marketed itself primarily through a weekly one-hour show on AM 560 called The Townstone Financial Show. They discussed issues of interest to homebuyers and offered advice to listeners and callers, sometimes getting into topics like crime, policing, movies and the like.

In 2020, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued Townstone claiming that the company violated a fair lending law by discriminating against African-Americans.

However, the CFPB never alleged any case of Townstone discriminating on mortgage applications.

Instead, the CFPB said Townstone discriminated through its marketing in its radio show by “discouraging” applications from Blacks. The CFPB’s evidence was a handful of comments on the show made over a four-year period representing perhaps 10 minutes of air time out of about 10,000 minutes.

Some of those comments might be regarded as offensive or in bad taste. They referred to a particular Jewel food store at Clark and Division Streets in Chicago as “Jungle Jewel” and included talk of certain Black areas having “hoodlum weekend” and approaching “a real war zone” or as “crazy” and places “to be driven through quickly” while avoiding eye contact.

But the CFPB did not produce even one example of anybody being discouraged from applying with Townstone. Nor, according to Townstone’s lawyers, has the company ever received any complaint about its show.

The comments from the show cited by the CFPB were taken out of context and meant little, Townstone believed. For example, the “Jungle Jewel” was commonly called that by people in the area, and referred to as such even by a Black blogger, who called it “a socioeconomic nightmare and a haven for street crazies.”

As Towntone’s lawyers later argued, if speech like Townstone’s is illegal, what wouldn’t violate the law? “Are creditors permitted to talk about crime at all? Education? Homelessness? Welfare? Poverty? Income distribution? Are they permitted to criticize the Black Lives Matter movement? Support the police? Criticize the Catholic Church about child abuse scandals? Support the BDS movement? Criticize the BDS movement? Support abortion rights? Oppose immigration?”

The lawsuit threatened to entirely destroy Townstone.

Its owner decided to fight.

But how do you fight against the government, which has unlimited resources?

Enter the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit with free speech expertise, which represented the company.

A federal court in Chicago threw out the CFPB’s lawsuit in February.

However, the ruling was based mostly on the court’s conclusion that the CFPB had authority only to regulate actual discrimination in lending, not marketing conduct that might be deemed “discouraging.” The court therefore didn’t need to get to the First Amendment defense.

However, the CFPB has now appealed to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, so the free speech defense is being raised again, and Townstone is getting still more help. Among the other firms filing amicus — friend of the court — briefs are Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, America’s Future, Free Speech Coalition, Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Lawyers from one of those firms, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, were guests on our podcast last year discussing legal issues with the University of Illinois’ Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies and Gov. Pritzker’s gas tax signage law.

It’s amicus brief in Townstone’s case summarizes it nicely: “Congress has not deputized CFPB as the ‘Tasteful Joke Police,’ nor would the First Amendment permit that delegation…. By conflating candid discussions of crime with the disparagement of African-American communities, CFPB seeks to do just that. Under the First Amendment, it cannot.”

If you think Townstone’s case or other First Amendment cases you’ve heard about are isolated examples, you are dangerously uninformed.

The assault on free speech is massive. Much of the government, social media and the press are partners in the Censorship Industrial Complex. That term was coined by Michael Shellenberger, who laid out 56 pages of evidence in congressional testimony last year. The Missouri v Biden case, now on appeal and likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, is already blowing the lid off much of the unholy alliance. Read about the massive evidence of record, discussed in the trial court’s Independence Day order.

And if you think the assault on free speech isn’t ongoing in Illinois, you are again dangerously uninformed. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul essentially thumbed his nose at the First Amendment when he personally drafted the Illinois law targeting alleged pro-life “misinformation” given out by crisis pregnancy groups near abortion clinics. A federal judge ridiculed it and enjoined its enforcement earlier this month. Chalk up that victory to another of the pro bono law firms available to help on First Amendment issues, the Thomas More Society.

Gov. JB Pritzker “is gaining a reputation as a hard-left culture warrior who is happy to silence political opponents,” as the Wall Street Journal recently said. “Pritzker apparently thinks that invoking the name Trump is a justification to get away with saying or doing anything. Not under the U.S. Constitution,” wrote the Journal.

He told CNN, “There ought to be a private right of action for anybody that’s dissuaded or told something that’s false, that’s the important thing.” That would be flagrantly unconstitutional.

Under the guise of banning book bans, the General assembly passed and Pritzker signed a bill delegating control over what books libraries carry to a group run by an open Marxist. Most recently, they passed an “anti-doxing” law that flies in the face of textbook First Amendment law, as we explained here.

Illinois Senators Durbin and Duckworth have been among the progressives jawboning tech platforms to do more censorship. And Illinois Congressman Sean Casten introduced a bill to strip courts of the power of judicial review — their power to declare laws invalid as violations of the First Amendment, or anything else.

Do not stand silent when your right to free speech is suppressed. Know that quality legal firms are often available for free. There are more beyond those I’ve mentioned here.

The assault on free speech must be defeated at all cost. Do your part.

In his famous anti-Vietnam speech, the late senator from South Dakota George McGovern told fellow Congressional leaders, “This chamber reeks of blood.” On Saturday, journalist Max Blumenthal opened a hard-hitting talk at the Ron Paul Institute’s “Which Way America…?” conference in D.C. by quoting those words, but applied them to the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

Blumenthal said that in Ukraine, Washington continues “wasting the lives and bodies of over 150,000 men, and that’s according to the Pentagon.” Citing recent studies on the immense numbers of Ukrainians who have lost limbs after a year-and-a-half of fighting (which could be surpassing WWI rates), he said the true Ukraine casualty count could be closer to 500,000 – which marks a monumental tragedy and disaster.

The GrayZone journalist then said of today’s Congress that “this chamber” not only “reeks of blood” but.. “they have wasted Ukrainian society on the mantle of anti-Russia hysteria” – as lawmakers in lockstep with the Biden administration continue to sink billions into Kiev.

Beltway liberal elites, Blumenthal asserted, still think Russia must be punished given they see Moscow as having brought the “bad orange man” to power in 2016. This is a big ideological aspect to what motivates the hawks, he said.

Further, Blumenthal explained that what’s happening here is that the US ruling class has “militarized the culture wars while depicting Ukraine as the ‘woke side’ vs. Russia as backwards and oppressive.”

But more importantly, the real “victors” are the major US defense contractors and their appendages like the K street neocon lobbying firms. Blumenthal highlighted that these, and the Biden administration, are operating with the bigger vision in mind of turning Ukraine into Europe’s “big Israel”. 

By this is meant a permanently militarized ‘Spartan’ wartime state, which is funded and weaponized by Washington in perpetuity, and possesses all the latest cutting edge Western defense tech. But like with the state of things long evident inside Israel (in particular oppression of both Palestinians and Israeli political dissenters), democracy must be eroded at home for this to happen. Still, the defense tech peddlers in the military-industrial complex will ‘win’ no matter how much Ukrainian society and its people are sacrificed. 

“In order to defend democracy in Ukraine, democracy must be curtailed at home,” Blumenthal emphasized, drawing lessons from current examples of oppression of free speech in the West, particularly related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

He noted here that his own investigative media outlet, The GrayZone, has had the bulk of its funding frozen by the popular platform GoFundMe. The outlet explained days ago [emphasis ZH]:

By this point, we had raised over $90,000 from over 1100 contributors. The generous contributions from our audience were accompanied by hundreds of messages of effusive support for our factual journalism holding imperial power to account.

And now, Gofundme is holding the donations hostage, refusing to transfer them to us, while failing to inform donors that it has effectively seized their money. The for-profit site has similarly refused to explain its freezing of their donations, issuing nothing more than a vague allusion – “some external concerns” – to pressure from powerful outside forces.

Gofundme’s financial sabotage follows the de facto sanctions imposed by Venmo and Paypal on our managing editor, Wyatt Reed, after he reported on the Ukrainian military’s targeting of civilians from the separatist side of the Donbas region.

Again, this is why Blumenthal could draw on recent personal experience in telling the Ron Paul conference audience that “democracy must be curtailed” in America in order to keep unlimited taxpayer dollars flowing into the Zelensky government’s coffers.

Blumenthal continued… but “now Russia has no incentive to negotiate” given they have the clear military momentum amid a failing Ukraine counteroffensive. The US and UK likely had a window of opportunity in the initial months of the war to more easily open up serious diplomatic peace negotiations, but this was actively thwarted. 

“We cannot have peace negotiations while war is being incentivized [by Washington interests] to this point,” he continued while also referencing neocons like Bill Kristol, who has been leading a charge to silence any dissenting views from among Republican nominees and politicians on Ukraine.

“These operatives need constant opportunities” which a permanent proxy war in Europe enables, Blumenthal continued – just like with the constant and historic billions in aid flowing to Israel, which serves to cyclically fuel the accompanying global reach and outsized influence of the Israel lobby.

On this question of whether negotiations are possible even from Kiev’s perspective, Zero Hedge asked Blumenthal what he thinks would happen in the unlikely scenario that Zelensky himself suddenly pursued peace talks with the Russians. Blumenthal responded as follows:

“If Zelensky were to pursue peace talks now before he’s re-elected… due to the kind of social forces that have been unleashed by Maidan, he will face a far-right Nazi insurgency in his own country, and he will become public enemy number one among some of the most violent and militarized forces.

…Which is why he went and met with Andriy Biletsky, the founder of Azov. Zelensky was elected on a platform of peace by 73% of the population because you still had the ethnic Russian population participating in Ukrainian society. They have been completely driven out and the constituency he’s working with is completely different now.”

Below: Last month, Ukrainian President Zelensky held court with one of the most notorious neo-Nazis in modern Ukrainian history, Azov Battalion founder Andriy Biletsky.

Turning Ukraine into “a big Israel” will involve long-term funding to shape and place “America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier not in the Middle East but in Europe,” Blumenthal said.

But as Ukrainians continue to be slaughtered, it won’t be a happy situation for a country to become a “big Israel”, Blumenthal concluded.

* * *

Former US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro (from 2011 to 2017) is helping to push this Ukraine as “big Israel” concept forward, Blumenthal pointed out.

A partial list of key elements of Shapiro’s road map for Ukraine was previously published by The Atlantic Council as follows:

• Security first: Every Israeli government promises, first and foremost, that it will deliver security—and knows it will be judged on this pledge. Ordinary citizens, not just politicians, pay close attention to security threats—both from across borders and from internal sources— and much of the public chooses who to elect by that metric alone.
• The whole population plays a role: The Israeli model goes further than Zelenskyy’s vision of security services deployed to civilian spaces: Most young Israeli adults serve in the military, and many are employed in security-related professions following their service. A common purpose unites the citizenry, making them ready to endure shared sacrifice. Civilians recognize their responsibility to follow security protocols and contribute to the cause. Some even arm themselves (though under strict supervision) to do so. The widespread mobilization of Ukrainian society in collective defense suggests that the country has this potential. In his comments, Zelenskyy reflected this reality when he said security would “come from the strength of every house, every building, every person.”
• Self-defense is the only way: If there’s any single principle that animates Israel’s security doctrine, it’s that Israel will defend itself, by itself—and rely on no other country to fight its battles. The tragedies of Jewish history have embedded that lesson deep in the nation’s soul. Ukraine’s own trauma, forced to fight alone against a larger aggressor, reinforces a similar conclusion: Don’t depend on the guarantees of others.
• But maintain active defense partnerships: Self-defense doesn’t mean total isolation. Israel maintains active defense partnerships, chiefly with the United States, which provides generous military assistance, but also with other nations with whom it shares intelligence, technology, and training. While Ukraine will probably not join NATO any time soon, it can deepen security partnerships with Alliance members and receive aid, weaponry, intelligence, and training to bolster its self-defense.
• Intelligence dominance: From its earliest days, Israel has invested deeply in its intelligence capabilities to ensure that it has the means to detect and deter its enemies—and, when needed, act proactively to strike them. Ukraine will need to upgrade its intelligence services to compete against Russian capabilities and ensure that it’s prepared to prevent and repulse Russian attacks.
• Technology is key: Although it relies on US assistance, Israel also chooses homegrown technology solutions for many of its greatest challenges. Multi-layer rocket and missile defenses, counter-drone systems, and tunnel detection technology are just recent examples. Ukraine—already home to bright technological minds—will know what threats it faces more than any partner; investing in its own solutions will allow it to be most responsive and adapt to new threats.

Authored by Allen Mashburn via American Greatness,

It’s never been about Trump… it’s about forcing Americans into submission…

In the tumultuous landscape of American politics, one name has become emblematic of the Left’s unyielding battle: Donald Trump. His presidency ignited a firestorm of opposition, revealing not just a political clash, but a broader war against those who hold opposing beliefs. As the dust settled on his term, it became evident that the Left’s war on Trump is just one facet of a broader campaign that aims to silence any dissenting voices. To preserve our freedoms, there must be an issued call to arms for patriotism, courage, and bravery from all citizens—willing to rise to protect the futures of their children and grandchildren.

The Left’s relentless pursuit of Donald Trump transcends mere political opposition. Every step he takes is scrutinized, every word analyzed, and every policy decision met with fervent resistance. Trump, in his own way, emerged as a representative man of the common people – an unconventional politician who resonated with those who felt unheard by the political establishment—and he is a master at rallying his troops. This made him a lightning rod for the Left’s ire, a symbol of everything they sought to dismantle. Yet, beneath the surface, this battle is not solely against a single individual; it is a struggle against any opposition to their ideological agenda. The political spectrum forever changed in America with the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States. The Left’s hand has been shown by his antics of unfiltered communication with America—which got him de-platformed from social media. His call for American independence from foreign entities goes totally against the sellout agenda of the Left that pushes America towards globalism, risking our national sovereignty. He has become a rock in the proverbial shoe of the establishment elites and leftists. He challenges their motives, logic, and their allegiance to Country—for that they hate him vehemently.

The war against Donald Trump is but one example of the broader campaign the Left wages against anyone with opposing beliefs. Their goal is not only to marginalize Trump and his supporters but to ensure that anyone who dares dissent is castigated and suppressed. This phenomenon is not confined to the political realm; it permeates everyday conversations, social media, and public discourse. As we witnessed during Trump’s presidency, the Left’s intolerance of opposing viewpoints extends far beyond the political elite and directly affects ordinary citizens who dare to voice their opinions.

This intolerance for differing beliefs is a dangerous precedent for the future of our Republic. A healthy society thrives on a diversity of opinions, encouraging open debates that lead to thoughtful and balanced decision-making. However, when one side seeks to silence the other, it not only weakens the deliberative process but threatens the very foundations upon which the nation was built.

The call for patriotism, courage, and bravery is not an abstract notion; it is a rallying cry for ordinary citizens to stand up for their country and its principles. As the Left’s war against opposing beliefs rages on, it is not just politicians and activists who must defend these ideals, but every American who values the preservation of freedom. Just as soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy with unwavering tenacity, citizens must stand firm against attempts to suppress their voices. Multitudes have had to die to provide us with this freedom. If it is to be passed to future generations, then it must be conserved through the strength and perseverance of the citizenry.

The erosion of the First Amendment stands at the heart of this struggle. The right to freedom of speech, expression, and assembly is the bedrock of America, enabling citizens to voice their concerns, challenge the status quo, and hold those in power accountable. However, over the last decade, we have witnessed a steady encroachment on these rights. Online censorship, the suppression of dissenting viewpoints, and the vilification of opposing voices have all contributed to a chilling effect on free speech.

The dismantling of our First Amendment rights is not a distant possibility; it is a present reality. Just as the Left relentlessly pursues Donald Trump, they also are chipping away at the very liberties that ensure a robust nation. This trend affects all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, and it poses a grave threat to the multiplicity of thought that is essential for a healthy society.

To combat this erosion of rights and preserve our freedoms, every American must be willing to put everything on the line. The fight for freedom is not for the faint-hearted; it requires courage, determination, and an unyielding commitment to the principles that define our nation. Just as soldiers displayed incredible bravery while fighting in the communist jungles of Vietnam, citizens must exhibit the same courage to defend their rights against ideological tyranny.

Ordinary citizens, irrespective of their backgrounds or beliefs, must recognize the urgency of this fight. As we seek to secure the futures of our children and grandchildren, we must stand united against any attempts to silence, suppress, or marginalize the voices of conservatism and common sense.

The Left’s relentless war against Donald Trump is emblematic of a broader campaign aimed at stifling dissenting voices and eroding the founding principles of our nation. This battle is going to require resolve, and love for our families and country. We have no choice. We are at war. It has never been about Donald Trump—it’s about forcing Americans into submission. The sooner we realize it, the sooner you will begin to fight, and win.

New York health authorities are asking residents to mask up during Labor Day weekend amid the latest wave of Covid-19 cases, and a broader resurgence of hysteria over the disease which generally laughs at face masks & kills less than 0.01% of those who contract it – with newer strains generally weaker than their predecessors, as tends to happen.

And according to the CDC, the latest variant of the virus – BA.2.86, “may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” but notes “At this point, there is no evidence that this variant is causing more severe illness.”

NYC Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan and NY Gov. Kathy Hochul have teamed up to urge extra precautions this weekend, including “proven prevention tools” such as masks.

According to the latest data from the New York City Health Department, there have been 825 daily cases of COVID-19 on average over the past week. While this is several times higher than the seven-day average of 230 cases reported on July 4, it is far lower than the 2,000-plus cases around this time in 2022.

Even though overall COVID-19 indicators are much lower than a year ago, some institutions have started to adopt mask mandates, sparking pushback in some circles and a “we will not comply” trend on social media. –Epoch Times

Former President Donald Trump has openly called fear-monger over new COVID-19 variants nothing more than a ploy to force vote-by-mail in order to rig another election.

“We will not shut down our schools. We will not accept your lockdowns. We will not abide by your mask mandates, and we will not tolerate your vaccine mandates,” Trump said in a video posted on Truth Social.

Read the NYC advisory below (via The Conservative Treehouse),

Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary (subscribe here),

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has gone from criminalizing court filings to committing crimes with respect to her own court filings.

Georgia law makes it unlawful to knowingly file a court document “knowing or having reason to know that such document is false or contains a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.” Ga. Code Ann. § 16-10-20.1(b)(1).

DA Willis is well-aware of this law; she charged a number of Defendants – including Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman – with a violation of that law for filing in a document that contained a “materially false statement in federal court.” And she just violated it this week.

For background, Georgia law allows for a speedy trial demand in accordance with the Sixth Amendment, which provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” Two Defendants, Kenneth John Chesebro and Sidney Powell, have made that request pursuant to Georgia law.

DA Willis responded to these speedy trial demands with an utterly false Motion to Advise to inform the Court and the Defendants of the “consequences” of their requests for a speedy trial. This Motion was a violation of § 16-10-20.1(b)(1). By no means are we making a stretch – the statutory violations are clear and obvious. DA Willis and her team invented legal theories and misled the Court about relevant caselaw that allegedly supported her position. Let us explain.

DA Willis made four main assertions in her Motion (quoted in full below):

All of these statements are demonstrably false.

First, DA Willis alleges that because of Defendants’ speedy trial demand, they “cannot now argue that they are entitled to the State’s discovery responses ten (10) days in advance of trial. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. App. 88, 90 (2002); Ruff v. State, 266 Ga. App. 694, 695 (2004)”.

This is not true. Georgia law requires DA Willis to produce a broad spectrum of evidence “no later than ten days prior to trial.” Ga. Code Ann. § 17-16-4. A Defendant’s request for speedy trial does not waive this obligation.

Furthermore, the Defendants are not precluded from arguing they are entitled to evidence under Georgia law by the mere fact they requested a speedy trial. Those cases DA Willis cites in support of her position? They do not apply, they do not stand for the claim DA Willis says they do. The Smith case involved a criminal defendant that requested a continuance. The Ruff case had to do with a defendant rejecting a continuance offer from a trial court where the State did not disclose witnesses in a timely manner. Neither case precludes the ability of a defendant to object to late disclosure of evidence.

Second, and DA Willis states “The Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to notice of the State’s similar transaction evidence ten (10) days in advance of trial. Brown v. State, 275 Ga. App. 281, 287 (2005)”.

Again, this is false. Rule 31.1 requires DA Willis to provide notice of intent to present similar transactions to be “given and filed at least 10 days before trial unless the time is shortened or lengthened by the judge.”

The Defendants did not waive that obligation to benefit DA Willis. It still exists, and it still binds DA Willis. The case DA Willis cites – Brown v. State – does not stand for the proposition that this requirement is waived by a request for a speedy trial. In fact, both the Brown case and Rule 31.1. contemplate the necessity of briefing and arguments where the 10 day notice is violated.

Third, DA Willis alleges the request for a speedy trial precludes the Defendants “from calling any witnesses whose statements were not provided to the State at least ten (10) days in advance of trial. Clark v. State, 271 Ga. App. 534, 536 (2005).”

Another falsehood. Georgia law allows for this 10 day witness statement requirement to be shortened or lengthened “as the court permits.” Ga. Code Ann. § 17-16-7. Whether witnesses are excluded for a violation of the notice rule is up to the Judge; there is no outright preclusion, as alleged by DA Willis.

And again, the case DA Willis cites just doesn’t stand for what she says it does. Clark v. State involved a criminal defendant who violated that 10 day witness statement requirement. The trial judge in Clark gave the defendant the option of not calling the witness or the ability to continue his case to a later date so that the witness could testify. There is no outright prohibition from calling a witness where the statement was produced with less than 10 days for trial, as maintained by DA Willis.

Fourth, Willis claims “The Defendants cannot now complain that they received less than seven (7) days notice of the trial date in this case. Linkous v. State, 254 Ga. App. 43, 47 (2002).”

False. Rule 32.1 requires notice of a trial date “not less than 7 days before the trial date or dates.” This notice requirement, which falls on the Court, exists to protect the due process rights of a criminal defendant. (The surprise of a trial date means an attorney cannot effectively represent their client.) It does not go away where speedy trial demand.

And as you might have guessed, the case cited by DA Willis does not stand for the proposition that a speedy trial demand means a criminal defendant waives the 7 day trial notice. The case cited by DA Willis is Linkous v. State, which concerns the remedies where there is a violation of Rule 32.1. It doesn’t excuse non-compliance with Rule 32.1.

At a minimum, the motion from DA Willis was deserving of sanctions. The trial judge, however, denied the motion without full briefing from the Defendants. He wasn’t concerned with accountability.

Finally, you might be curious about the purpose of the filing from DA Willis. Here’s our guess: DA Willis plans to violate her discovery obligations. She doesn’t want to take these cases to trial within the timeline the speedy trial demands afford. (Chesebro is set for trial on October 23, 2023.) Thus, she will violate her discovery and notice requirements, putting the Defendants in the tenuous position of either (1) proceeding to trial without adequate notice; or (2) having to continue the case to another date so that they may adequately prepare for trial.

This is nothing more than dishonest gamesmanship, a violation of Georgia law and an affront to prosecutorial ethics. If DA Willis wants to punish false statements to a court, she should turn herself in.

Read more from Techno Fog at The Reactionary

Authored by Matthew Lysiak via The Epoch Times,

Growing safety concerns over the city’s bussing of illegal immigrants into the outer boroughs have intensified efforts from Staten Island to break away from the Big Apple.

“The values of New York City are not in line with those of Staten Island and they haven’t been for a long time and that divide is only growing larger,” Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella told the Epoch Times.

“There is this very real sense that the city won’t listen to our concerns and that we have reached a boiling point.”

“The people feel like we are on a tugboat attached to the Titanic,” Fossella said.

“The people can see that the city is sinking, and unless we are okay with sinking too, there is a need to separate.”

Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella (at right, wearing black shirt and white pants) at a protest outside a Catholic school that was converted into a shelter for illegal immigrants on Aug. 29, 2023. (Courtesy of the Office of the Staten Island Borough President)

Staten Island, long known as the forgotten borough, has often flirted with the idea of breaking off from the rest of the city. It has always been an outlier within the five boroughs, with a majority conservative Republican population that is often at odds with the rest of the city. Despite New York City’s status as a blue stronghold, the borough mostly voted for former President Donald Trump in 2020. However, in recent years, many residents have reached a breaking point over increases in crime and, more recently, the bussing of illegal immigrants into residential neighborhoods, according to Mr. Fossella.

“They dump these individuals into our neighborhoods and to my knowledge none of them have been vetted,” said Mr. Fossella.

“One of these migrant shelters is located directly across the street from two elementary schools and they just expect the people to take it. Why would we want to take that risk?

“The concern is legitimate. We are not as safe as we should be and the people are fed up.”

Staten Island is facing the consequences of a growing surge of illegal immigrants into New York City, the only locality in the state considered to be a “Sanctuary City.” Where to put the influx of new illegal immigrants has become an issue of controversy and inter-party tensions.

The city has long claimed a legal obligation to provide housing for every resident under the so-called “right to shelter” law, which was first established in 1981. The rule came into existence after advocates for the homeless claimed the right to shelter in a lawsuit. The city agreed with the homeless advocates, signing a “consent decree,” which pledged to provide shelter to anyone suffering “physical, mental, or social dysfunction.”

City officials claim an estimated influx of 100,000 illegal immigrants has strained the city’s resources and services. Mayor Adams has insisted that New York City can’t sustain the numbers of new illegal immigrants, even by utilizing the outer boroughs, and has called on the rest of the state to help ease the burden.

“Governor Hochul has been a partner on subway safety, on crime, on a host of things, but I think on this issue the governor is wrong,” Adams told students during an Aug. 22 appearance at New York Law School.

“She’s the governor of the state of New York. New York City is in that state. Every county in this state should be part of this.”

Governor Kathy Hochul has pushed back on sharing the burden, declaring during a speech last week that “we cannot and will not force other parts of our state to shelter migrants, nor are we going to be asking these migrants to move to other parts of the state against their will.”

In preemptive motions, upstate county leaders have issued their own emergency orders to block Adams’s attempts to ship illegal immigrants into their communities. The Adams administration is challenging the legality of the emergency orders in court.

Staten Island officials understand that as long they remain part of the city, the busloads of illegal immigrants entering the borough will continue unimpeded.

“Almost no one here wants this, but there is nothing we can do,” said Mr. Fossella. “No one will listen.”

The Staten Island battle for independence faces an uphill climb. Any chance of secession depends on the approval of both the New York City Council and the state Legislature. However, despite the long odds, a growing chorus of local officials are determined to keep fighting for the borough’s right to self-determination.

At an Aug. 29 protest outside the former Catholic school where the city has set up a migrant shelter, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) called for Mr. Adams to allow the island to secede.

“What we’re simply asking is, for common sense. We want the mayor to end this. Stop doing what you’re doing and listen. Secure the damn border. We do not have a border. We do not have a nation,” Ms. Malliotakis said during the protest, according to her office.

“If you’re not going to do your job, mayor, then let Staten Island secede.”

Was Jeffrey Epstein involved in a plot to tie the 2016 Trump campaign to Russia?

A disturbing new report in the Wall Street Journal reveals that LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman introduced Trump’s inner circle to Jeffrey Epstein, who then introduced them to a ‘top Russian diplomat.’

As a reminder, Hoffman;

• Bankrolled an online disinformation hoax against Roy Moore, conducted by a former Obama administration official – who also created the “Hamilton 68” propaganda website purporting to track Russian bots. Hoffman later apologized when caught.
• Bankrolled Trump rape accuser E. Jean Carroll.
• Gave $600,000 to a legal defense fund for Fusion GPS – the opposition research firm which prepared documents for the infamous ‘Trump Tower’ setup meeting with Don. Jr. and facilitated the Hillary Clinton-funded Steele Dossier.
• Was a major Hillary Clinton supporter during the 2016 US election.

According to the Journal, Hoffman emailed people in Trump’s orbit to introduce them to Epstein, who then invited one of them – Peter Thiel – to meet with Russia’s ambassador to the UN!

In March 2014, fellow billionaire and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman, a major donor to Democrats, emailed Thiel to introduce Epstein and arrange a meeting at Thiel’s San Francisco home. 

“Meet one of the guys who invented derivatives, Jeffrey Epstein?” Hoffman wrote, echoing an inaccurate claim Epstein sometimes made. Hoffman wrote that Epstein was “mostly fun, very interesting guy, you may find him perverse, but very smart on biology, computation, macro econ.” 

Hoffman said he regrets all his interactions with Epstein and that he made the introduction to help fundraise for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

…

Epstein scheduled lunches with venture capitalist Peter Thiel and real-estate investor Thomas Barrack in 2016, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. At the time, both were high-profile financial backers of Trump’s campaign. 

Epstein invited Thiel and Barrack to separate meetings with Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations. Churkin, who died of an apparent heart attack in early 2017, had at least eight meetings scheduled with Epstein between 2015 and Churkin’s death, the documents show. -WSJ

So, Epstein – pal to the Democrats and a prolific pedophile, had extensive dealings with a Russian diplomat that he tried to connect with Trump’s inner circle?

The report also notes that “The documents, which include thousands of pages of emails and schedules from 2013 to 2017, don’t make reference to any meetings or conversations between Trump and Epstein,” and “don’t specify Epstein’s purpose in scheduling meetings with Trump’s associates or the Russian ambassador.”

Notably, these Epstein-Russia meetings happened when the Russiagate hoax was in full swing with the FBI’s involvement.

Yet, according to Thiel, the October 2016 meeting with Epstein and Churkin featured “nothing memorable.”

“I was rather naive,” Thiel told the outlet, “and I didn’t think enough about what Epstein’s agenda might have been.”

Meanwhile, a Trump campaign spokesman said: “None of these people were Trump campaign officials, and in fact President Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago.“

As the Journal further notes:

Epstein met with and donated to Democrats more often than Republicans, according to the documents and campaign donation records. The Journal has reported that his schedules included meeting several people who had served in the Clinton and Obama administrations. In his townhouse, Epstein hung a painting that depicted Bill Clinton wearing a blue dress and red heels. 

In 2019, a spokesman for Bill Clinton said the former president had cut off ties more than a decade before and didn’t know about Epstein’s alleged crimes. The spokesman said then that Bill Clinton took four flights on Epstein’s plane and once visited the townhouse, each time with his Secret Service team and for reasons related to the Clinton Foundation’s work. The spokesman declined to comment for this article.

Public records show Epstein donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 campaign for the Senate, and tax records indicate he donated $25,000 in 2006 to what is now the Clinton family’s global philanthropic foundation. A spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton declined to comment.

After his conviction, Epstein maintained connections with some former members of Bill Clinton’s cabinet, including Lawrence Summers, who served as Treasury secretary, and Bill Richardson, who served as energy secretary. He also met with Clinton alumni leaving the Obama administration, including Ruemmler and the current head of the Central Intelligence Agency, William Burns.

Which begs the question, was Epstein just another prong in the Democrats’ attempts to tie Trump to Russia in 2016?