Author

Elizabeth Vaughn

Browsing

(Language warning.)

Whoa!

A Chicago woman was EXTREMELY upset because she wanted to loot man, and these “Ay-rabs” (store owners) were protecting their “stuff” – with AK-47s. In the video below, she records herself while she delivers an epic rant.

She said the men with the guns were from Morocco and were not U.S. citizens. Certainly they weren’t licensed to carry in Illinois. She was going to call her cousin, the homicide detective, to straighten it out. Here are some excerpts from her diatribe.

They let these people come outside with they AK-47s. Ak-47s to protect they stuff from black people. They ready to kill black people, the A-rabs, the fake a** Ramadan mother f**kers. They got M-16s, AK – with they people’s out here. Everything y’all. Look at this s**t. They got mother f**kin’ AKs out here and I’m going to get my cousin that’s a police officer right now and ask him are they legally able to carry these mother f**kin’ guns like this. I need to know. I need to know.

You tell me that those mother f**kers that don’t live here, they don’t live here. This is not a United States citizen and he is sitting outside with a whole AK-47 ready to blow black people’s brains out, but they say they from America. And this is how they protect cheap a** sh*t.

This is what the minister’s talking about. Don’t trust these people that say they from Africa. They from Morocco. Fake a** Ramadan. Yeah.

They ready to kill black people over this cheap a** sh*t they got from China. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They ready kill somebody. Got a black man out here with these guns ready to kill us. They said don’t break into they store but they on our turf and this some mother f**kin’ cheap a** China building supplies fake a** mother f**kin’ Boost Mobile fake a** sh*t. And this is how they protect they sh*t. They ready to kill me.

This isn’t a right to bear arms. These people got the black man out here ready to kill more black people if we decide to loot they store. They ready to kill us! But b**ch we gonna come back and you gotta have that gun all mother f**kin’ day because you don’t even know who I am.

Allah, gonna – burn this place, Allah. Burn em down Allah.

I’m talking to the Chicago Police because I wanna know, can Arabs that don’t have no mother f**kin’ citizenship, can they carry AK-47s to protect their s**t that came from China? And I’m talking to the CPD right now.

I wonder how that went!

Author: Elizabeth Vaughn

Source: Red State: Chicago Woman Goes BALLISTIC Because Shop Owners (With AK-47s) Prevent Her From Looting [Watch]

This Sunday morning, The New York Times has devoted their front page to the nearly 100,000 U.S. victims of COVID-19. The text-only cover lists 1,000 names and excerpts from the obituaries of people who have succumbed to the dreaded virus.

The only problem with this lovely memorial is that at least one of the victims did not appear to have died from the coronavirus and his was only the sixth name on the list.

Twitchy reports, for example, “Jordan D. Haynes, 27, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is described as “a generous young man with a delightful grin.” News reports, however, describe a Jordan D. Haynes, 27, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, as a murder victim found in his car. But was he infected with COVID-19 when he was murdered? Then it counts.”

The snippet in the bottom right portion of the tweet below doesn’t mention whether or not he was COVID positive. The only reference to COVID in the full obituary, which can be viewed here, is: “Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, private family services will be held at Stewart Baxter Funeral & Memorial Services in Cedar Rapids.”

CNN’s Brian Stelter came to The Times’ rescue later on Saturday night with the tweet below:

One Twitter user responded to this report by saying “Keep going down the list. These things always work out for Stelter.” Another mocked it by saying, “Oh yeah, 1 out of 1,000. Please.”

But others were quick to point out that Haynes was only the sixth name on the list.

One replied, “He was one out of 5 under 30 on the list. Another in that group had a condition that doctors told him he would not live to 18. Did not test positive for COVID but still ruled a COVID death. That’s 40% of the under 30 age bracket.”

Here are a few others:

It was six names in. There will be dozens more errors.

More people will look at the list and find a relative’s name and tell the truth.

I’m starting to get suspicious that the NYT wants Joe Biden to win. Do they have any kind recorded animosity towards Donald Trump?

Author: Elizabeth Vaughn

Source: Red State: About Those Obituary Excerpts of COVID Victims on the Front Page of The New York Times

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) served as the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee throughout 2017 and 2018. Nunes was the first to discover that the Steele dossier had been used by the FBI in their FISA court application as the basis for the warrant to spy on Carter Page. He then prepared what has become known as the Nunes memo which was released to the public in February 2018.

The Nunes Memo marked a turning point for the Republicans. And it was followed up by the Grassley-Graham Letter. These documents provided Americans with the first hint that all was not as it seemed at the FBI.

Christopher Wray began his service as FBI Director in August 2017 and had not been a participant in the counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. Nevertheless, he was very protective of his employees and was not pleased by the accusations of FISA abuse by FBI agents contained in the Memo.

Wray issued a public response to the Memo in which he disputed its accuracy. He wrote, “We have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

As you can imagine, the mainstream media ran with it. Adam Schiff, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, tried to force Nunes to resign.

In his December 2019 Intelligence Community Inspector General report, Michael Horowitz confirmed the accuracy of the Nunes Memo.

Over the last two years, we’ve seen more of the same from Wray. He has stonewalled FOIA requests for FBI documents and continued to cover up the wrongdoing of FBI officials (mostly former) who were involved in the deep state plot.

The December IG report also identified 17 serious errors or omissions made by FBI officials as they sought to obtain a warrant to spy on Page.

In early April, several of the footnotes from Horowitz’ report were declassified and we learned that the FBI had been aware early on that the dossier was bogus. FBI agents had interviewed Steele’s primary sub-source who said the stories were either exaggerations or outright fabrications. The footnotes also disclosed that Steele may have been fed Russian disinformation. Yet the FBI continued to use the dossier to substantiate their applications to the FISA Court.

Asked what action he would take to address the obvious problems the Horowitz team had revealed, Wray told reporters, “I am ordering over 40 corrective actions to address all of those things in a way that’s robust and serious. We’re determined to learn the lessons from this report.”

In the end, Wray distributed a video to the workforce and followed up with an all-employee email. Wray had set a deadline of April 30 for “the completion of training, including testing to confirm that personnel understand the expectations and the materials.” I posted about this here. That was Wray’s solution to the misconduct of top officials in his organization.

Last month, another IG report showed that the Horowitz team had found significant flaws in 29 out of 29 randomly selected FBI FISA applications.

Republicans dismay with the FBI Director turned into outrage after the unsealing of the Flynn documents last Wednesday night. It had become clear to the world that FBI officials had set up then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn for political gain.

Investigative reporter John Solomon, founder of Just the News, spoke to several Republican members of Congress as well as Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, about Wray.

Rep. Andy Biggs (AZ) told Solomon:

There is so much underneath the surface of the ocean, this iceberg that we haven’t even seen yet. And when you get back to Christopher Wray, that is part of my frustration…More has to be declassified.”

I have had access to 302s [FBI interview reports] that I have asked, for gosh a good year or so – and I know others have too – that they would declassify those. And they keep telling us, ‘yeah they are in the process,’ and they never declassify them. They’ve got to be declassified.

More has got to be declassified for the American people to understand why big government, why closed secret courts and processes are dangerous to the republic.

Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) also spoke to Solomon:

Director Wray owes the American people an explanation about the FBI’s misconduct with General Flynn, It’s becoming more and more apparent that the FBI ruined the life of a respected general in its goal to take down President Trump. The FBI’s actions were part of a larger pattern of wrongdoing, which were all directed against the president and his advisers. If they can do it to a president, they can do it to any of us.

Powell came out and accused Wray’s FBI of hiding the truth. She said:

Wray knew about the evidence we were requesting for General Flynn. My request was even discussed in the Director’s meeting. Most of what has been produced so far and what will be produced has been in FBI files all along–now more than three years. If the Prosecutors refused to produce it, he should have taken it to the AG or filed a whistle blower complaint himself. Instead, it would appear he was part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice and Congress, and we don’t know what else.

If lawmakers are waiting for the Wray FBI to suddenly become more cooperative, they’re going to be disappointed. The best remedy, of course, would be to replace Wray as I posted about on Sunday night. Most of my readers say that will never happen between now and November. If Trump were to win a second term, he would likely be replaced.

The only course of action with Wray at the helm is for Attorney General William Barr and Jeffrey Jensen, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri who conducted an independent review of the case at Barr’s request, to simply work around him – as they did last week. None of the Flynn records would have been unsealed if it hadn’t been for them. Barr knows the drill by now. He is the Attorney General and additionally, President Trump granted him full access to any documents from any agency a year ago. He will simply take what he needs.

Wray will be little more than a placeholder.

Update added at 6:45: Reps. Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson sent a letter to Wray demanding all documents pertaining to the FBI’s operation against Flynn.

Author: Elizabeth Vaughn

Source: Red State: GOP Lawmakers Turn Up the Heat on FBI Director Wray After Last Week’s Flynn Revelations; Will He Act? Update

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a teleconference call with reporters on Thursday to announce the creation of the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis, which she said would be a “special bipartisan oversight panel.” As opposed to Adam Schiff’s “9/11 style commission” to review the Trump administration’s response to the crisis, Pelosi told reporters this new committee will deal with the “here and now.”

She explained that, “The committee will be empowered to examine all aspects of the federal response to coronavirus, and to assure that the taxpayers’ dollars are being wisely and efficiently spent to save lives, deliver relief and benefit our economy. With over $2 trillion in emergency relief, we need to ensure those dollars are spent carefully and effectively.”

Asked if it would have subpoena power, she replied, “It would have subpoena power that’s for sure. It’s no use having a committee unless you have subpoena power. And we would hope that there would be cooperation because this is not a kind of an investigation of the administration it’s about the whole [response].”

I’m sure President Trump will ignore those subpoenas just as he has ignored House subpoenas in the past, as he should.

Fox News reports:

Pelosi compared the new committee to the Senate bipartisan committee chaired by then-Sen. Harry Truman in 1941 to investigate waste, fraud and abuse in defense spending in the early days of World War II.

Pelosi said the committee will investigate how the private sector is spending its government funds and press to ensure the federal response is based on science and health experts. The committee will fight against profiteering, political favoritism and price gouging.

The new committee will be chaired by House Majority whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC). During a conference call with the Democratic caucus about the Coronavirus Relief bill (prior to its passage in the Senate) , Clyburn was quoted as saying, “This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy spoke to reporters separately and said he is concerned about Clyburn chairing the committee, especially after his recently leaked remark.

He told reporters, “The other concern that I have from this standpoint is inside the bill that we passed, we did put in oversight and it seems really redundant.”

Oversight by a group of Inspector Generals is already built into the law.

Here we go again.

Author: Elizabeth Vaughn

Source: Red State: Pelosi Flexes Her Muscles; Creates a New Coronavirus Oversight Committee in the House

After he swept the Arizona, Florida and Illinois primaries on Tuesday night, presumed Democratic nominee Joe Biden delivered a victory speech to a camera. For obvious reasons, there was no audience.

Speaking in a quiet, somber tone, he ended his speech saying, “Thank you all. Thank you all for listening.” He stood there, motionless, staring ahead as if in a trance. Was he waiting for applause?

Entering from stage right came Jill Biden to break this strange silence. Somewhat startled by her sudden appearance, he smiles, says “Thanks. Thanks.”

He says, “Okay.” Wife exits stage right. He takes one more look at “his audience” and follows her.

Very strange.

Do they really think they’re fooling people?

Author: Elizabeth Vaughn

Source: Red State: What’s Up Joe? Biden Finishes Speech, Stares Ahead Until Wife Jill Comes to the Rescue

Investigative journalist John Solomon has got his A-game going this week. On Wednesday, he reported that newly declassified FBI memos, court filings, and interview notes prove that, shortly after President Trump’s January 20, 2017 inauguration:

1. The FBI knew that General Michael Flynn was not a Russian agent.

2. The FBI had “affirmed key targets of the FBI counterintelligence investigation made exculpatory statements denying collusion to undercover sources.”

3. Christopher Steele’s dossier was likely bogus.

A motion filed in September 2019 by Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, in which she requested “Brady Material” (evidence that is favorable to the accused), has been unsealed. In the filing, Powell seeks access to “an internal DOJ document dated January 30, 2017, in which the FBI exonerated Mr. Flynn of being ‘an agent of Russia.’”

DCD Flynn Motion to Compel by Fox News on Scribd

Just the News, Solomon’s new website, has obtained a 2018 letter from the Special Counsel’s office to Flynn’s defense team which said, “According to an internal DOJ memo dated January 30, 2017, after the Jan. 24 interview, the FBI advised that based on the interview the FBI did not believe Flynn was acting as an agent of Russia.”

(Note: Sidney Powell took over Flynn’s defense in December 2018.)

Flynn was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) between July 2012 and August 2014. The letter also states that Flynn had briefed the DIA on all of his contacts with Russia which is something he likely would not have done had he been colluding with the Russian government.

Okay, boys, so tell us again why the government continued to prosecute Flynn. Solomon explains that U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan, who has presided over the case has “so far has concluded that the exoneration of Flynn on the Russia collusion charge wasn’t relevant to his conviction since he pled guilty to a different crime, making a false statement to the FBI.”

Not relevant? He lied to the FBI about a crime he didn’t commit?

Flynn was caught in a perjury trap. The FBI had been looking for a way to charge him with a crime. Although they would have preferred Russian collusion, they settled for lying to the FBI.

Sullivan Memorandum Opinion by Techno Fog on Scribd

So, ten days into Trump’s presidency, the FBI knows that General Flynn did not collude with the Russians. Yet via leaks to the media, the most notable being The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, Americans were led to believe the opposite. Ignatius published excerpts from Flynn’s conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition and presented a “false storyline of Flynn as a Russian stooge was broadcasted across the nation.”

Solomon spoke to Powell and was told the DOJ provided her with “three sentences from the DOJ memo.” She “has been unable to get the full document.”

“It’s just horrible,” Powell said. “They gave us a little three lines summary of it and the letter and told us it existed but have refused to give us the actual document, which I know means there’s a lot of other information in it that would be helpful to us.”

In addition, Powell told Solomon that Special Counsel Robert Mueller “was fully aware of a letter sent in early January 2017 to Flynn from Britain’s national security adviser raising concerns about Steele’s credibility.” Solomon reports:

The British government “hand-delivered” a letter to Flynn’s team that “totally disavowed any credibility of Christopher Steele, and would have completely destroyed the Russia collusion narrative,” Powell said.

Flynn himself has no memory of receiving the communique, but people around him at the time do and confirmed the existence of the document, Powell explained. Flynn was questioned about it during his debriefings by Mueller’s team, she added.

“I was told that a copy of the document would have been given to [then-National Security Adviser] Susan Rice as well,” she added. “So the Obama administration knew full well that the entire Russia collusion mess was a farce.”

Instead of responding to the British government’s warning by abandoning the Russia collusion narrative and sparing her client the years-long ordeal of being targeted for investigation, top U.S. intelligence officials hid the communication, Powell said.

Her account confirms information that Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) provided for a May 2019 article for The Hill.

IC Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report released in December 2019 confirmed that Steele’s primary sub-source, whom the FBI interviewed in January, March, and May of 2017, had largely debunked the information contained in the dossier. In fact, they knew after the first interview with the sub-source that it was mostly false.

The Horowitz report also revealed that the FBI had used the dossier as the basis of their FISA Court applications to obtain a warrant and three renewals to spy on Trump advisor Carter Page. By the time of the second renewal in April 2017, they absolutely knew the dossier was a pack of lies, yet they went forward with the application and followed up with a third renewal application several months later. The FBI “hid this from the court.”

On Wednesday, I posted here about an order issued last week by U.S. District Court Judge James A. Boasberg, the new chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In the order, Boasberg questioned why the FBI didn’t alert the DOJ or the FISA Court after they had interviewed the sub-source and found serious “inconsistencies.” He wrote:

Steele obtained this information from a primary sub-source, who had, in turn, obtained the information from his/her own source network. The FBI did not, however, advise DOJ or the Court of inconsistencies between sections of Steele’s reporting that had been used in the applications and statements Steele’s primary sub-source had made to the FBI about the accuracy of information attributed to ‘Person 1,’ who the FBI assessed had been the source of the information in Reports 95 and 102. The government also did not disclose that Steele himself had undercut the reliability of Person 1, telling the FBI that Person 1 was a ‘boaster’ and an ‘egoist’ and ‘may engage in some embellishment.’

A while back, Solomon reported that the FBI had kept a “spreadsheet which similarly found that nearly all of Steele’s information in the dossier was either false, could not be proved, or amounted to Internet-based rumor, making it mostly worthless as actionable intelligence.”

Boasberg also wrote about the FBI’s failure to notify the Court about exculpatory statements from Carter Page (and George Papadopoulos who told undercover agents the Trump Team was not colluding with Russia).

The government also omitted Page’s statements to a confidential human source that he intentionally had ‘stayed clear’ of efforts to change the Republican platform, as well as evidence tending to show that two other Trump campaign officials were responsible for the change. Both pieces of information were inconsistent with the government’s suggestion that, at the behest of the Russian government, Page may have facilitated a change to the Republican platform regarding Russia ‘s annexation of part of Ukraine.

Former FBI Director James Comey’s called all of his evidence of collusion the FBI’s “mosaic.”

Solomon notes the Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating a February 14, 2017, Comey/Trump White House dinner. Trump asked Comey if the FBI could see their way to dropping their investigation of Flynn and Comey notably failed to tell the President that he had already been exonerated. The theory is that Comey may have begun his “pivot away from the bogus Russia collusion investigation” and to “lay a predicate for a new investigation focused on possible obstruction of justice.”

Solomon concludes by saying, “There is now clear and convincing evidence that the country, the president and the courts were kept in the dark about an historic turnaround in the evidence in January 2017, even as defendants were being pressured to plead guilty to crimes unrelated to the collusion allegation. Time will tell whether those who kept this secret for two more years will be held to account.”

My feeling is that the toothpaste is largely out of the tube. As the deep state spent their time trying to frame President Trump and anyone with whom he associated, Republicans, once they became aware of it, have been working to reveal their activities. And they’ve accumulated a treasure trove of evidence. And Lord knows what the Durham team has gathered so far. We have no way of knowing what they’ve found because Durham and his team don’t leak like the Mueller team did on a regular basis. All we know is that the Durham probe turned criminal in October, the team requested all of John Brennan’s communications from the CIA in December (or earlier) and that the investigation has been expanded twice. And all of those are very positive signs.

Author: Elizabeth Vaughn

Source: Red State: Newly Declassified Material Shows FBI Knew in January 2017 Flynn Was Not a Russian Agent, Nor Did Trump Collude with Russia

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a despicable woman with no redeeming qualities.

During her weekly press conference last Thursday, she said, “Lives are at stake. This is not a time for name-calling or playing politics.”

Shortly after it had ended she was criticizing President Trump over his administration’s response to the coronavirus crisis as anemic, opaque, too late and often chaotic.

All the while, Pelosi was holding back a House bill to provide funding to fight it.

Speaking with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on Monday night, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, “Look how much politics they want to play. The dirty little secret. We have the coronavirus. We need to fund this. You know what Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker, did? She withheld the bill last week. You know why? So the DCCC could run ads against seven Republicans.”

Ingraham asked, “How many people ran ads on the coronavirus, fundraising appeals?”

“I don’t know how many ran, but they actually took the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, spent money, went into these seven Republican seats to campaign against them about the coronavirus when she’s the Speaker of the House. Instead of putting America first, she put her politics first and kept the bill from coming to the floor,” McCarthy explained.

This is not surprising. For the Democrats, the coronavirus outbreak has become their latest weapon with which to damage the President.

McCarthy brought this up during a GOP press conference today. He told reporters:

Last week, we had an opportunity to bring forth the Supplemental, the needed funds for public health and others to deal with this item. We are not the majority. We cannot determine the floor, so Speaker Pelosi left, and had us leave Congress. This week, we hope we’re going to be able to bring it up.

The one concerning issue that I have, not as just the leader of the Republicans, but really as an American. Why didn’t we vote on it last week? And why now is the Democratic arm of the DCCC running ads against seven Republicans? On something they could not vote on, because they could not control it. Are they playing politics and holding the money up so their political arm can attack Republicans on this issue? Can they, for one time put people before politics? I think they owe the American people an apology. I think the Speaker needs to apologize. Cheri Bustos needs to take those ads down and stop playing politics with this.

America is nervous. We’ve been preparing for years in advance. We’ve got to make sure we have all the needed resources there.

So bring the bill to the floor.

Earlier in the conference, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep.Greg Walden (R-OR), spoke and said that Democrats were trying to include HR3 (Elijah Cummings’ Lower Drug Costs Now Act) with the bill for coronavirus funding. HR3 is a very controversial bill which will require some debate. Walden basically said, let’s keep this separate, because the funds to fight the coronavirus crisis are needed now.

It was a valiant effort Republicans, but unfortunately, I doubt too many of the journalists in the room will be reporting on it.

(Relevant segment begins at 11:55.)

Author: Elizabeth Vaughn

Source: Red State: Pelosi’s ‘Dirty Little Secret’: She Held Back Coronavirus Funding Bill so DCCC Could Run Super Tuesday Ads Against GOP

Earlier, I posted about President Trump’s call for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to recuse herself from any future cases involving his administration after reading the scathing dissent she wrote last Friday. She accused her colleagues of bias and the federal government of seeking stays “in an unprecedented cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources by claiming one emergency after another.”

In a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting today, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) destroyed Sotomayor’s dissent in two minutes and even came up with an appropriate, and quite creative, metaphor. He said:

If you look at the facts of what’s happening with nationwide injunctions, I think it will explain why the DOJ has had to ask the Supreme Court to intervene over and over and over again.

Nearly one-third of the nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump Administration have come from courts in the state of California. Two-thirds of the states, their district courts have issued a total of zero nationwide injunctions. So you have a handful of courts that are driving this problem.

Cruz offered some perspective by comparing the number of nationwide injunctions issued during previous administrations:

12 issued in 8 years of Bush Administration (1.5 per year)

19 issued in 8 years of Obama Administration (2.4 per year)

55 issued in 3 years of Trump Administration (18.3 per year)

I have to say it. Can you imagine if 55 nationwide injunctions had been issued in the first three years of the Obama Administration?

He continued:

I believe we have a handful of judges who are operating effectively as part of the Resistance Movement, trying to put themselves in the way of Trump policies they happen to disagree with. And so I have to say I read Justice Sotomayor’s complaint about, ‘gosh, we’re getting all these emergency appeals of the Supreme Court.’ I read it a little bit like an arsonist complaining about the noise from the fire trucks. The reason there is so many appeals is you’ve had fifty-five nationwide injunctions from far too many judges who are not honoring their oath. They’re not following the law. Instead they’re operating as partisan political activists.

Thanks Senator! That pretty much takes care of Sotomayor’s dissent.

The good news in the last three years is that, according to The Washington Post, one out of every four U.S. circuit court judges is a Trump nominee. Thirteen district court judges are Trump nominees. And two Supreme Court Justices are Trump nominees. That’s total of 187 U.S. judges. And with one year left in his first term, that number is sure to climb.

If the President wins re-election, which is more likely than not, and Republicans can keep their Senate majority, another 200+ judges could be replaced with Trump nominees and hopefully, one of those will be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This would be the dream scenario and if it ever came to pass, it’s impact would be felt for years to come.

The Post’s Colby Itcowitz explains how the injection of so many conservative judges has already had an effect on the country. A positive effect if you’re a Trump supporter.

Trump’s mark on the judiciary is already having far-reaching effects on legislation and liberal priorities. Just last week, the 5th Circuit struck down a core provision of the Affordable Care Act. One of the two appellate judges who ruled against the landmark law was a Trump appointee.

The Supreme Court — where two of the nine justices are conservatives selected by Trump — could eventually hear that case.

The 13 circuit courts are the second most powerful in the nation, serving as a last stop for appeals on lower court rulings, unless the case is taken up by the Supreme Court. So far, Trump has appointed 50 judges to circuit court benches. Comparatively, by this point in President Obama’s first term, he had confirmed 25. At the end of his eight years, he had appointed 55 circuit judges.

Trump’s appointments have flipped three circuit courts to majority GOP-appointed judges, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York. The president has also selected younger conservatives for these lifetime appointments, ensuring his impact is felt for many years.

The executor of this aggressive push is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is almost singularly focused on reshaping the federal judiciary, twice ramming through Senate rule changes to speed up confirmations over Democrats’ objections.

Most Americans don’t pay a great deal of attention to the political composition of the U.S. judiciary. However, as we have witnessed in the era of Trump, even though judges are appointed rather than elected, their influence can be great.

Watch the video.

Author: Elizabeth Vaughn

Source: Red State: Ted Cruz Takes a Sledgehammer to Sotomayor’s Dissent and Comes Up with a Fitting Metaphor

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!