29 thoughts on “News/Politics 7-1-21

  1. Trump was right again.


    Liked by 1 person

  2. ———-


  3. Perv scumbag tries to take the high road.

    He got off on a technicality, not because he was innocent.


  4. But at least there are no more mean tweets…..

    And some idiots thought they would be a kinder, gentler, more moderate admin.

    Apparently those idiots weren’t paying attention.

    “Insiders Reveal Kamala Harris’ VP Office Is A Toxic Abusive Mess, Just Like Her Campaign

    Maybe Kamala is the problem.”


    “Politico‘s interviews with 22 people in Vice President Kamala Harris’s office revealed a mess similar to her weak presidential campaign.

    Harris’s recent visit to the “border” caused a ruckus among her staff:

    For days, aides and outside allies had been calling and texting with each other about the political fallout that a potential trip would entail. But when it became known that she was going to El Paso, it left many scrambling, including officials who were responsible for making travel arrangements and others outside the VP’s office charged with crafting the messaging across the administration.

    The handling of the border visit was the latest chaotic moment for a staff that’s quickly become mired in them. Harris’ team is experiencing low morale, porous lines of communication and diminished trust among aides and senior officials. Much of the frustration internally is directed at Tina Flournoy, Harris’ chief of staff, a veteran of Democratic politics who began working for her earlier this year.

    In interviews, 22 current and former vice presidential aides, administration officials and associates of Harris and Biden described a tense and at times dour office atmosphere. Aides and allies said Flournoy, in an apparent effort to protect Harris, has instead created an insular environment where ideas are ignored or met with harsh dismissals and decisions are dragged out. Often, they said, she refuses to take responsibility for delicate issues and blames staffers for the negative results that ensue.

    An administration official tried to direct the blame at Harris because everything “starts at the top.” The official is 100% correct.

    Another person said, “People are thrown under the bus from the very top, there are short fuses and it’s an abusive environment. It’s not a healthy environment and people often feel mistreated. It’s not a place where people feel supported but a place where people feel treated like s*it.”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Re. 8:55: This was a ruling from the same Pennsylvania Supreme Court that affirmed the Election Fraud of 2020 despite hundreds of affidavits by its own citizens?


  6. The very same.

    But this time, the State Supreme Court got it right. They (prosecutors) unfairly entered testimony damaging to Cosby that was irrelevant to the case he was charged with. The defense team noted this problem and illegality, but the judge allowed it. The judge dropped the ball. One justice said he’d have thrown it out on those grounds too.

    Plus, prosecutors had a deal with Cosby, and went back on it.


    “Pennsylvania’s Highest Court Overturns Bill Cosby’s Sex Assault Conviction
    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision bars any retrial.

    Posted by Mary Chastain Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 01:22pm 58 Comments
    Share This StoryFacebookTwitterParlerGabMeWeRedditEmail

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Bill Cosby’s sex assault conviction due to an agreement made with a former prosecutor that prevented the state from charging him.

    Cosby has served three years of a three-to-10 year sentence for his conviction of drugging and molesting Andrea Constand in 2004.

    From The Philadelphia Inquirer:

    The case had a complicated history that began in 2005 when Constand first reported the alleged assault to then-Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr., who ultimately declined to file charges in this case.

    But Castor’s successors reopened the case and charged Cosby in 2015, just days before the 12-year statute of limitations expired and amid a barrage of new accusations from women across the country.

    At the time, Castor objected to the new prosecution, saying he’d struck a deal with Cosby and his lawyers not to prosecute him for Constand’s assault if Cosby agreed to sit for a deposition in a civil case she had filed against him.

    Excerpts from that deposition were ultimately used against Cosby at trial

    He was charged in late 2015, when a prosecutor armed with newly unsealed evidence — Cosby’s damaging deposition from her lawsuit — arrested him days before the 12-year statute of limitations expired.

    It all comes down to the 5th Amendment:

    The right against compulsory self-incrimination accompanies a person wherever he goes, no matter the legal proceeding in which he participates, unless and until “the potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exists.” Taylor, 230 A.3d at 1065. It is indisputable that, in Constand’s civil case, Cosby was entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment. No court could have forced Cosby to testify in a deposition or at a trial so long as the potential for criminal charges remained. Here, however, when called for deposition, Cosby no longer faced criminal charges. When compelled to testify, Cosby no longer had a right to invoke his right to remain silent.

    These legal commandments compel only one conclusion. Cosby did not invoke the Fifth Amendment before he incriminated himself because he was operating under the reasonable belief that D.A. Castor’s decision not to prosecute him meant that “the potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exist[ed].” Id. at 1065. Cosby could not invoke that which he no longer possessed, given the Commonwealth’s assurances that he faced no risk of prosecution. Not only did D.A. Castor’s unconditional decision not to prosecute Cosby strip Cosby of a fundamental constitutional right, but, because he was forced to testify, Cosby provided Constand’s civil attorneys with evidence of Cosby’s past use of drugs to facilitate his sexual exploits. Undoubtedly, this information hindered Cosby’s ability to defend against the civil action, and led to a settlement for a significant amount of money. We are left with no doubt that Cosby relied to his detriment upon the district attorney’s decision not to prosecute him. The question then becomes whether that reliance was reasonable. Unreasonable reliance warrants no legal remedy.

    The ruling bars any retrial: “There is only one remedy that can completely restore Cosby to the status quo ante. He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred.”



    “The court’s majority did not engage with the other central question at the heart of Cosby’s appeal: whether testimony from five other Cosby accusers prosecutors called as witnesses to bolster Constand’s story — and to show his alleged assault against her fit a pattern of predatory behavior — had unduly tainted the jury against him.

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas G. Saylor said he would have overturned the case on those grounds.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. All the lies the media pushed, and are still pushing.



  8. ———


  9. ———–


  10. ——–


  11. Boy, they sure do lie…. a lot.



  12. ——-


  13. P-T (8:49) is us. I saw that late last night and figured our crime team was (and would be) busy.

    The theory is that some of these huge, professional-grade fireworks come through the ports and somehow make their way into private hands.


  14. I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that the Wuhan lab was/is operatied by a gov’t agency and the military had/has some involvement. CDC labs work much the same way — its a thin line which keeps the military, the gov’t and the CDC separate; mostly for appearances.

    Technically, the court made the right decision. The previous DA Bruce Castor made a deal which ultimately protected Cosby. However, AJ’s link doesn’t mention Castor’s later position as co-lead as the defense team for Trumps second impeachment trial. Not sure why the Trump team would hire someone who made a deal with Cosby.

    Harris can be a difficult very ambitious person, just watch her as a Senator in committee hearings. However, her chief of staff seems to be the overbearing one this time.


  15. Small victory, but a step in the right direction for election integrity.

    Citizens in every state should demand voter ID and election integrity laws!


    “Arizona’s ban on ballot-harvesting and out-of-precinct voting does not violate the federal Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 this morning in a closely watched case with implications for future elections.

    The court opinion split neatly along ideological and partisan lines with the 6 conservative justices nominated by Republican presidents voting to uphold the state law and the 3 liberal justices voting to strike it down.”


  16. I had to google ballot harvesting to see if meant what I thought it did — weird. Makes sense to ban it. If people can’t make it to the polls, increased access to mail in ballots, internet voting, put polls in nursing homes, apartments,etc. Better solutions than breaking the chain of custody of the ballot (something which is happening in Arizona right now). Here’s a good example of why ballot harvesting should be banned.


  17. More on Tychicus’ link…..


    “Arizona, like every other State, has adopted rules to promote the order and integrity of its elections. At issue here are two such provisions: an “out-ofprecinct policy,” which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct, and a “ballot-collection law,” known as H.B. 2023, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers, and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot. A majority of States require in-precinct voting, and about twenty States limit ballot collection. After a ten-day trial, the district court upheld these provisions against claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment. A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed. At the en banc stage, however, the Ninth Circuit reversed—against the urging of the United States and over two vigorous dissents joined by four judges.

    The questions presented are:

    1. Does Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?

    2. Does Arizona’s ballot-collection law violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment?

    After oral argument in early March, the consensus based on the questioning was that the law would be upheld.

    In the 6-3 Majority Opinion, authored by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court upheld the Arizona law.

    In these cases, we are called upon for the first time to apply §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to regulations that govern how ballots are collected and counted. Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. All voters may vote by mail or in person for nearly a month before election day, but Arizona imposes two restrictions that are claimed to be unlawful. First, in some counties, voters who choose to cast a ballot in person on election day must vote in their own precincts or else their ballots will not be counted. Second, mailin ballots cannot be collected by anyone other than an election official, a mail carrier, or a voter’s family member, household member, or caregiver. After a trial, a District Court upheld these rules, as did a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. But an en banc court, by a divided vote, found them to be unlawful. It relied on the rules’ small disparate impacts on members of minority groups, as well as past discrimination dating back to the State’s territorial days. And it overturned the District Court’s finding that the Arizona Legislature did not adopt the ballot-collection restriction for a discriminatory purpose. We now hold that the en banc court misunderstood and misapplied §2 and that it exceeded its authority in rejecting the District Court’s factual finding on the issue of legislative intent.
    Gorsuch, joined by Thomas, issued a concurring opinion:

    I join the Court’s opinion in full, but flag one thing it does not decide. Our cases have assumed—without deciding— that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under §2. See Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 60, and n. 8 (1980) (plurality opinion). Lower courts have treated this as an open question. E.g., Washington v. Finlay, 664 F. 2d 913, 926 (CA4 1981). Because no party argues that the plaintiffs lack a cause of action here, and because the existence (or not) of a cause of action does not go to a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, see Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U. S. 143, 150 (2015), this Court need not and does not address that issue today.”

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Sorry Cali. Democrats.

    You’ll have to find another way of intimidating groups you disagree with politically, and their donors. 🙂

    “Supreme Court Strikes Down California Policy Forcing Disclosure Of Non-Profit Donors To State Regulators”


    “In an Opinion issued today, the Supreme Court has stricken a California policy requiring disclosure of large non-profit donor information to state regulators. The case establishes the important principle that if you want to make, ahem, large donations to organizations like the Legal Insurrection Foundation, your identify would not need to be disclosed on a routine basis to state regulators.

    The Internal Revenue Service requires non-profits to disclose certain large donors when filing annual Form 990 returns. The information, on Schedule B, is supposed to be non-public, unlike the remainder of the Form 990.

    This confidentiality of donor information is of great importance to Legal Insurrection Foundation and other right-of-center non-profits given the long and vicious history or supporters of conservative causes (whether non-profits or candidates) being harassed and targeted for cancelation. But some state charity regulators, including California, require that the entire Form 990, including Schedule B, be filed with the state when renewing state charitable registration.

    That raises concerns that states will be more susceptible to leaks of this information for political purposes. The mere threat of disclosure can be enough to chill donors.”


    Which was the whole point. Sorry, try again.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. It only took 6 months after Trump left for the border to completely fall apart. With four years as president and the “wall” as his signature issue you’d think his legacy would last more than six months.

    Curious how the National Guard works; can a governor send the national guard outside state borders? Can a governor accept private money to fund the movement of the National Guard to the border? The first question I have no idea but the second seems obvious — you can’t accept private money to finance the movement of the national guard. (this a reference to the actions of the South Dakota governor)

    Those anyone actually pay attention to facebook warnings and suggestions? They throw those up to avoid being legally responsible for what’s posted.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.