Under oath, Cassidy Hutchison, a top aide to the then-White House chief of staff, recalled in detail several meetings, text message conversations, and phone calls with which she was personally involved.
[Hutchison testified that a Secret Service Agent] “told her that the president got in the vehicle after his speech believing that there was a good chance he would be driven to the Capitol ahead of the mob. When agents said they were not going to do that because they had no way to keep him safe, the agent told Hutchinson that Trump grew irate. Hutchinson said the agent relayed that Trump yelled something to the effect of: “I’m the f-ing president, take me up to the Capitol now.” He then reached up towards the front seat to try and grab the steering wheel. When the agent in the limo, known as one who was particularly loyal to Trump, told the president to remove his hands from the wheel, Trump then lunged at the agent, apparently going for his neck, Hutchinson testified.
All lies and the Secret Service is incredulous.
UPDATE – ELITE MEDIA PRETENDS THAT THE EVIDENCE REFUTING HER CLAIMS AND THE SECRET SERVICE CALLING HER OUT FOR LYING DIDN’T HAPPEN:
After the 2020 election Texas filed suit in the Supreme Court with 21 states concurring that several states who had disputed results used election rule changes that were unconstitutional as they violated laws passed by state legislatures. The Supreme Court dismissed the case without hearing or argument.
Now that the issue has cooled the court seems ready to issue a correction.
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”
The presidential electors clause in Article 2 states: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”
The Electors Clause in the Constitution is in plain language. Local judges may not change election laws at the last minute. Secretaries of State may not unilaterally change election laws either, all of which happened in the states disputed in the 2020 election allowing drop boxes, ballot harvesting, mass mailout of ballots, suspending of signature verification of ballots and other election integrity checks.
The state legislature and only the legislatures set election laws so long a they do not violate the US Constitution (such as saying red heads cannot vote). Legislatures do not even need a governor’s signature to set such laws. The Founders were clear on this.
Affirming the plain language of the Electors Clause would go a long way in curtailing ballot fraud efforts.
Justice Samuel Alito used his concurring opinion to dismantle the arguments of the court’s three far left dissenting Justices whose arguments in short amounted to “there is gun crime, how dare you!” As is often the case, the leftists take the crimes of the guilty and lay them at the feet of innocent, ordinary citizens who have not broken the law or had ill intent.
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
JUSTICE ALITO, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court in full but add the following comments in response to the dissent.
Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what we have actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628.
Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances. The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose.
That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.
In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.
What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?
The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?
The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1
The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.
No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns,2 and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.
Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal attack. According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5 million times per year. Brief for Law Enforcement Groups et al. as Amici Curiae 5. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report commissioned by former President Barack Obama reviewed the literature surrounding firearms use and noted that “[s]tudies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns . . . have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, Priorities for Research To Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence 15–16 (2013) (referenced in Brief for Independent Women’s Law Center as Amicus Curiae 19–20).
Many of the amicus briefs filed in this case tell the story of such people. Some recount incidents in which a potential victim escaped death or serious injury only because carrying a gun for self-defense was allowed in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred. Here are two examples. One night in 1987, Austin Fulk, a gay man from Arkansas, “was chatting with another man in a parking lot when four gay bashers charged them with baseball bats and tire irons. Fulk’s companion drew his pistol from under the seat of his car, brandished it at the attackers, and fired a single shot over their heads, causing them to flee and saving the wouldbe victims from serious harm.” Brief for DC Project Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae 31 (footnote omitted).
On July 7, 2020, a woman was brutally assaulted in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant in Jefferson City, Tennessee. Her assailant slammed her to the ground and began to drag her around while strangling her. She was saved when a bystander who was lawfully carrying a pistol pointed his gun at the assailant, who then stopped the assault and the assailant was arrested. Ibid. (citing C. Wethington, Jefferson City Police: Legally Armed Good Samaritan Stops Assault, ABC News 6, WATE.com (July 9, 2020), https://www.wate.com/news/local-news/jefferson-city-policelegally-armed-good-samaritan-stops-assault/).
In other incidents, a law-abiding person was driven to violate the Sullivan Law because of fear of victimization and as a result was arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated. See Brief for Black Attorneys of Legal Aid et al. as Amici Curiae 22–25.
Some briefs were filed by members of groups whose members feel that they have special reasons to fear attacks. See Brief for Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association as Amicus Curiae; Brief for DC Project Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae; Brief for Black Guns Matter et al. as Amici Curiae; Brief for Independent Women’s Law Center as Amicus Curiae; Brief for National African American Gun Association, Inc., as Amicus Curiae.
I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.
This brings me to Part II–B of the dissent, post, at 11–21, which chastises the Court for deciding this case without a trial and factual findings about just how hard it is for a lawabiding New Yorker to get a carry permit. The record before us, however, tells us everything we need on this score. At argument, New York’s solicitor general was asked about an ordinary person who works at night and must walk through dark and crime-infested streets to get home. Tr. of Oral Arg. 66–67. The solicitor general was asked whether such a person would be issued a carry permit if she pleaded: “[T]here have been a lot of muggings in this area, and I am scared to death.” Id., at 67. The solicitor general’s candid answer was “in general,” no. Ibid. To get a permit, the applicant would have to show more—for example, that she had been singled out for attack. Id., at 65; see also id., at 58. A law that dictates that answer violates the Second Amendment.
My final point concerns the dissent’s complaint that the Court relies too heavily on history and should instead approve the sort of “means-end” analysis employed in this case by the Second Circuit. Under that approach, a court, in most cases, assesses a law’s burden on the Second Amendment right and the strength of the State’s interest in imposing the challenged restriction. See post, at 20. This mode of analysis places no firm limits on the ability of judges to sustain any law restricting the possession or use of a gun. Two examples illustrate the point.
The first is the Second Circuit’s decision in a case the Court decided two Terms ago, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 590 U. S. ___ (2020). The law in that case affected New York City residents who had been issued permits to keep a gun in the home for selfdefense. The city recommended that these permit holders practice at a range to ensure that they are able to handle their guns safely, but the law prohibited them from taking their guns to any range other than the seven that were spread around the city’s five boroughs. Even if such a person unloaded the gun, locked it in the trunk of a car, and drove to the nearest range, that person would violate the law if the nearest range happened to be outside city limits. The Second Circuit held that the law was constitutional, concluding, among other things, that the restriction was substantially related to the city’s interests in public safety and crime prevention. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. New York, 883 F. 3d 45, 62–64 (2018). But after we agreed to review that decision, the city repealed the law and admitted that it did not actually have any beneficial effect on public safety. See N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §400.00(6) (West Cum. Supp. 2022); Suggestion of Mootness in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, O. T. 2019, No. 18–280, pp. 5–7.
Exhibit two is the dissent filed in Heller by JUSTICE BREYER, the author of today’s dissent. At issue in Heller was an ordinance that made it impossible for any District of Columbia resident to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. See 554 U. S., at 574–575. Even the respondent, who carried a gun on the job while protecting federal facilities, did not qualify. Id., at 575–576. The District of Columbia law was an extreme outlier; only a few other jurisdictions in the entire country had similar laws. Nevertheless, JUSTICE BREYER’s dissent, while accepting for the sake of argument that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home, concluded, based on essentially the same test that today’s dissent defends, that the District’s complete ban was constitutional. See id., at 689, 722 (under “an interest-balancing inquiry. . .” the dissent would “conclude that the District’s measure is a proportionate, not a disproportionate, response to the compelling concerns that led the District to adopt it”).
Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit.3 That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that. See post, at 25–28.
Heller correctly recognized that the Second Amendment codifies the right of ordinary law-abiding Americans to protect themselves from lethal violence by possessing and, if necessary, using a gun. In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, there were no police departments, and many families lived alone on isolated farms or on the frontiers. If these people were attacked, they were on their own. It is hard to imagine the furor that would have erupted if the Federal Government and the States had tried to take away the guns that these people needed for protection.
Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.
Tim Pool is a former left wing journalist who gained fame working for Vice Media. A note to people not familiar with Tim Pool, he defines “civil war” figuratively. He does not mean blue states and red states should start shooting each other.
Montana congressional candidate Ryan Zinke, Wisconsin congressional candidate Derrick Van Orden, Arizona congressional candidate Eli Crane, and Florida congressional candidate Brady Duke discussed surging gas prices and inflation.
The legal reasoning used in ROE v Wade was “outcome based” and used pretzel legal logic to get where the judges on the court wanted it to go. This behavior undermined the legitimacy of the court. Many left of center legal scholars who are pro-abortion have said the same in their writings.
No rational person wants nine unelected elite law school grads to decide our social issues. That is what elections are for.
Does anyone seriously believe when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 that it was Congress and the States’ intent to create a constitutional right to abortion?
The majority of the world does not allow late term abortions and in that the United States was an outlier. This court decision does not ban abortions at all, it simply leaves it to the states to decide for themselves.
This does not mean that “Republicans want to ban birth control” or any such thing. These new rulings are simply making the point that if the Constitution does not address an issue it is left to the political process. It’s called democracy.
Justice Alito wrote of Roe:
Roe was on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided… Wielding nothing but “raw judicial power,” the Court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people.
When the Democrat attack ad is so over the top and silly that you wonder if it came from the Babylon Bee why not take ownership of it for a good laugh? Candidate for Arizona Governor Kari Lake certainly is having all the fun.
“Science” has been corrupted by money, bribes, kickbacks ands politics. The Pfizer documents released by the court show that they, as well as government, knew that most of the claims about the properties and effectiveness of the COVID poke were false or exaggerated. Claims of catastrophic events of global warming alarmists have also repeatedly shown to be untrue, and leaked emails from top climate scientists show how they punished and smeared scientists who posted honest data sets and manipulated the peer review process to push an alarmist narrative.
Bill Whittle, in this analysis below, takes the raw homicide statistics from organizations such as the United Nations and compares it to who and what places have the highest levels of civilian ownership of legal firearms.
The United States is the gun capital of the world. Is it also the murder capital of the world? What would happen if we eliminated the top few progressive cities ran by Democrats who have strict gun control and looked at the rest of gun packed America? How safe would it be?
If “good guys with guns” just make things worse. Than why are there not mass shootings at gun shows? Why do politicians who insist you and your children have no guns to protect them, have armed guards protecting them and their families?
Why is the IRS stockpiling ammunition?
UPDATE – JUSTICE ALITO RESPONDS TO LEFTISTS CITING MASS SHOOTINGS:
“How does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo?
The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.”
We hear much about how the police failed in the Uvalde shooting, but after watching hours of hearings in the Texas State Legislature it becomes clear that the failures were largely political.
The biggest failure was Police Chief Pete Arredondo. Arredondo, according to the hearing, made every wrong decision possible with one Texas Senator describing him as “turning into protoplasm” when shots were fired.
Chief Arredondo, who has just successfully ran for local council, behaved as a politician, not a tactical law enforcement officer. Arredondo even went so far as to lie to arriving Texas DPS and federal officers who responded telling them that they had the shooter cornered and were in negotiations even as the shooter was still shooting students.
Eventually responding officers and even some parents started taking things into their own hands to get students to safety. According to the hearing, one Texas DPS officer was with an Uvalde officer waiting as Chief Arredondo ordered and eventually wanted to start clearing rooms and get more students out. The Uvalde officer wanted to get approval from a supervisor to do so and the Texas DPS officer responded, “He’s not my supervisor” and started getting students out.
Unfortunately the law makes the highest ranking local official the site commander and in this case that was Chief Arredondo.
The failures did not stop with Arredondo. The school board did not follow state guidelines on physical security. The fence around the school was easily bypassed and had gaps. Many of the locks could not be engaged from the inside. The classrooms 111 & 112 had misaligned door striker plates rendering the locks ineffective because the locks could not latch. Teachers had reported the problem but the doors had remained that way so late students could just push open the door instead of having to be let in even if the door was “locked.” The shooter knew this. There were too few armed school resource officers to cover the school buildings as early press reports show that the school board did not think it necessary.
Related: This is what Rumble is doing to fight censorship.
The rules are open and clear. There are punishments for those who just red flag lots of content they simply do not like. All actions by rumble can be appealed to a jury of actual content creators who ultimately decide. Algorithms are open source.
What you are about to see is a year of honest political reality brought to you in forty minutes. This maybe the most important video you ever see.
When Obama took office Matt Tiabbi and Glenn Greenwald were darlings of the progressive secular left of the Democratic Party. Now, the Twitterati calls them “right wingers.” What changed and how did they come to discover that “partisanship” before Trump was a “Truman Show” put on to keep you in the dark.
Tiabbi explains how the Democrats, along with corrupt Republican leadership such as the Bush/McConnell branch of the party, were making the wealth gap worse. There was no daylight between the Bush/Obama handling of the 2008 financial crisis.
Kari Lake: “A lot of people are disappointed in Mike Pence” for many reasons…
In the interest of full disclosure, while V.P. Pence and yours truly are not friends, this writer has known him since he was a local radio host in Indiana. He is a very nice man, but that is also his problem. Pence has shown time and time again he has no stomach for conflict. He caved repeatedly to the corporate media/Democrat narrative when he was Conference Leader in the House, he caved on basic First Amendment freedoms and other areas when he was Indiana’s Governor and he has continued to cave when pressured. He is a great guy who is simply a disappointment.
The Democrats have turned themselves into a corporatist kleptocracy with a Marxist bent and it turns out that democrat donors do not like it when their portfolios tank and the economy and stock market are in upheaval.
Fox News’ Jesse Watters reports, with a dose of trolling, how CNN and the donors are starting to rebel.
Not only are so called gun red flag laws unconstitutional on their face, as they require you to prove your innocence and if you cannot afford a lawyer you are out of luck, their application is often malicious.
Contested divorces often ended up resulting on one or both partners calling the police on each other to get their guns confiscated for spite. Democrats prosecutors using them to target Republicans and more.
The Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous 9-0 decision in CANIGLIA v. STROM that “red flag” style seizure of a citizen’s guns were unconstitutional and that community caretaking laws do not apply to someone’s private home.. They violate multiple amendments to the Constitution as well as basic due process rights.
Of course the Washington Post disagrees with the Supreme Court because they believe they know better… The corporate media lies so much now that most people do not pay them any mind.
Tucker Carlson has a great video explaining all this:
UPDATE – Democrats move to ban the sale of phone geotracking data.
But now he claims it has been debunked.
Barr said “in my opinion” which lawyer speak legally means he knows he is not making a statement of fact. I can say in my opinion the Moon is made of cheese under oath because an opinion is legally not a statement of fact.
If former Attorney General Bill Barr thinks geotracking/geofencing technology has been debunked, why was his Department of Justice (DoJ) using it to find suspects and prosecute people?
Geofence warrants: How police can use protesters’ phones against them.
The searches, sometimes known as reverse location requests, increased fivefold from 2018 to 2019.
Thousands of people have been arrested nationwide following protests over police brutality sparked by the killing of George Floyd, who died after being pinned down by officers in Minneapolis. On Tuesday, BuzzFeed News reported that the Drug Enforcement Agency had been given authority to conduct surveillance on protesters.
Geofence warrants, sometimes known as reverse location searches, are just one of those tools. They effectively allow police to get information on every protester through one single request. Google, which gets the majority of these requests because of its location history feature, said it only provides data from that feature, which needs to be opt-in.
Google saw a 15-fold increase in geofence requests from 2017 to 2018. The following year, it increased fivefold, the company said in court documents. A New York Times report from April 2019 found that Google received as many as 180 requests a week.
Forbes reported in December 2019 that in an investigation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Google provided records on 1,500 phone locations from a reverse location search.
All while still claiming that Russia rigged the 2016 election and the Trump/Russia hoax, calling for violence against Supreme Court justices an claiming the Republican’s have rigged the upcoming mid terms. See our previous piece on this HERE.
Kash Patel was in the White House on January 6th. The “committee” does not want you to know this. You can see an extended interview with Kash Patel HERE. After watching you will understand why the “committee” did not want Patel testifying on live television. [Editor’s Note: If you do not subscribe to the Epoch Times, you should.]
They even said that five police officers were killed on January 6th. The fact is that no officers does on January 6th and none were killed by the protestors.
Congressman Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the conservative House Freedom Caucus, on Friday emphatically denied Cheney’s allegation made during a prime time Jan, 6 House committee hearing Thursday night.
“The notion that I ever sought a presidential pardon for myself, or other members of Congress, is an absolute shameless and soulless lie,”
The Democrat leadership, after brazenly advocating violence against Supreme Court Justices, have blocked a proposed law to get them security.
Some Democrats still claim that the 2016 election was stolen by Russia, in spite of the fact that the Trump/Russia evidence was fabricated by the Clinton Campaign along with elements of the FBI/DoJ. Democrats now claim that Republicans are going to steal the midterm elections. All while they are pushing their phony January 6th narrative that almost no one believes.
In the mean time audits, indictments, new investigations and other evidence such as the new 2000 Mules documentary continue to pile on evidence that President Trump may be correct about the election problems in 2020.
You cant make this stuff up.
Tucker has the video.
Megyn Kelly calls out the January 6th Committee for more lies and deceptive edits:
“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X