Category Archives: Federalist

After its push to oust L.A. County District Attorney George Gasconfailedbecause nearly 200,000 petition signatures were invalidated, the campaign to recall Gasconannouncedit is filing for injunctive relief after an initial review showed 39 percent of the signatures invalidated by the L.A. County registrar were likely wrongfully rejected.

The initial review of invalidated signatures demonstrates the Registrars counting process was seriously flawed, resulting in substantial errors, the wrongful invalidation of many valid signatures, and the disenfranchisement of thousands of Los Angeles County Voters, the campaign wrote in a press release.

After the California countys registrar-recorder, Dean Logan, rejected the campaigns recall petition over an insufficient number of valid signatures (Logan determined the petition had only 520,050 valid signatures, a figure just short of the 566,857 they needed), volunteer attorneys began conducting a review of the invalidated signatures. They identified legitimate challenges for 39 percent of the invalidated signatures reviewed so far.

Examples of improper invalidation by the registrar include:

The recall campaign also claims that the L.A. County registrar placed arbitrary limits on the campaigns review process, limiting review hours, the number of reviewers, and access to information necessary to determine the validity of a signature. It will take more than a year for the volunteers to review all the invalidated signatures under those limitations, the recall effort claims. The campaign is filing for injunctive relief to seek expanded access.

In addition to claiming improper signature invalidation, the campaign also argues that L.A. Countys voter rolls were artificially inflated by 208,000 to 515,000 ineligible names at the time the number of signatures required for the recall was determined (10 percent of all Los Angeles County registered voters).

Had L.A. County been actively maintaining its voter rolls, theres a good chance the recall petition would have gone through, even with the rejected signatures.

The original requirement of 566,857 signatures to qualify (based on bloated voter rolls showing 5,668,569 active voters at the time) should have been set anywhere from 515,357 to 546,357, according to the press release. This issue alone could substantially affect the outcome of the recall given that the Registrar has already identified what it deems to be 520,050 valid signatures.

This isnt the first time L.A. County has been criticized for failing to clean its voter rolls. Back in 2019, California and Los Angeles Countyagreed to purgeas many as 1.5 million ineligible voters from its rolls after Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit arguing the Golden State and its biggest county were not complying with federal law requiring the removal of inactive registrants.

If I were interested in Los Angeles, I would be dredging the records of list maintenance through the NVRA [the National Voter Registration Act, a federal law that governs voter registration and removal] to see how responsive theyve been to the Judicial Watch lawsuit settlement, because theyre under some kind of obligation already, President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation J. Christian Adams told The Federalist.

Adams has spent 10 years litigating voter roll maintenance and other election integrity-related cases. Most recently, PILF hasfiledsix complaints surrounding 515 duplicate voter registrations in six Minnesota counties. The nonprofit law group also filed a lawsuitagainst Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Bensonfor her failure to remove nearly 26,000 dead registrants from Michigans voter rolls.

Due to an11thCircuit Court decisionthat refused to accept the inflated voter roll theory, Adams recommended the recall campaign instead find the ineligible registrants duplicates, deceased, those that have moved, etc. on L.A. Countys voter rolls, just like what PILF does.

They need to be doing the analysis, and not just the math, Adams said. Because the courts have foreclosed the math part.

While it looks like many Democrat-run cities Los Angeles,Philadelphia,Detroit are plagued by inflated voter rolls (and many critics rightly blamenefariouspolitical operatives), Adams believes its because there are more renters than property owners in cities, thus more people move around and fail to change their voter registration.

The NVRA does not let you remove people who are ineligible at the pace that theyre coming onto the rolls, Adams said. That limits your ability to take people off with the same amount of speed theyre moving.

Although voter roll maintenance can be a slow and arduous process for municipalities, Adams still emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate records.

This [Gascon recall petition] is the first time Ive heard of bad list maintenance potentially impacting a signature drive, Adams said. In all the years Ive worked in this space Ive never contemplated how having ineligible voters on your rolls makes it harder for people to get enough signatures in a place like California. Its a big deal.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Visit link:

Suit: Inflated Voter Rolls, Botched Review Foiled Woke DA Recall

U.S. CourtsAileen Cannon.

Judge Aileen Cannon said she had been a member of the Federalist Society since 2005 in her application for her position. The Federalist Society is a group of conservative judges. Cannons bias has been called into question as she was thrust into the spotlight in hearings on the investigation into former President Donald Trump and documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Cannon ordered a halt on the Department of Justice review of evidence seized from the estate on Monday, September 5, 2022, citing a possible threat caused by potential media leaks in the case. Read the full order here.

Plaintiff faces an unquantifiable potential harm by way of improper disclosure of sensitive information to the public, Cannon wrote in the 24-page ruling.

Heres what you need to know:

Cannon wrote in her 24-page application for her current role as federal judge that she became a member of the Federalist Society in 2005. The application to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary for U.S District Court Judge in southern Florida position required her to list all professional, business, fraternal, scholarly, civic, charitable, or other organizations.

The other memberships she listed were the Delta Delta Delta Fraternity, the Duke University Alumni Association, The Moorings Yacht & Country Club, Order of the Coif at The University of Michigan Law School, and The University of Michigan Law School Alumni Association.

Cannon was appointed by Trump to her position as U.S. District Court Judge in 2020 following a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Cannons bias has been called into question as she renders critical rulings on the investigation into evidence seized from Trumps estate.

Aileen Cannon, a 38-year old lawyer and member of the Federalist Society with no prior judicial experience, was hand-picked by Marco Rubio, further blessed by Rick Scott and then nominated by Trump. Cant imagine that was a factor when Trump went judge shopping, Peter Vroom wrote on Twitter.

The Federalist Societys website says it was founded in 1982 as a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order.

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order, the organizations page says. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.

The website includes commendations from conservative leaders including former President Ronald Reagan and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The Federalist Society is changing the culture of our nations law schools, Reagan said, according to the website. You are returning the values and concepts of law as our founders understood them to scholarly dialogue, and through that dialogue, to our legal institutions.

READ NEXT: Aileen Cannons Background, Husband & Family: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Link:

Aileen Cannon Joined The Federalist Society in 2005

1. Friday Open Thread  Colorado Pols
2. We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives  The Federalist
3. 'I Agree': Conservatives Say Good Riddance to 'Nationalist MAGA Right-Wingers' After The Federalist Argues For Dropping 'Conservative' Label  Mediaite
4. Driving us backwards: The Federalist's wet dream of a neo-fascist America  We Hunted The Mammoth
5. View Full Coverage on Google News

Continued here:

Friday Open Thread - Colorado Pols

When even liberals have begun noticing how insufferable their side has become, you know things have gotten bad for them to a severe degree.

The Washington Post ran a column last week by Brian Broome, a man who has literally said he hates Christmas. And even for him, his liberal friends have gone too far in their gross bitterness.

In the liberal circles in which I mostly travel, it is nothing short of blasphemy to speak a positive word about any conservative for any reason, wrote Broome. Many of my friends cant even bear to hear their names mentioned. I was reminded of this when in conversation with a friend I mentioned my approval of Rep. Liz Cheneys performance during the Jan. 6 hearings.

Broome said his friend reacted with shock, hurt and outrage that anyone would say a positive thing to him about a person who doesnt share every single one of his political beliefs.

Is anyone surprised by this? Liberals have been exhibiting this kind of intolerant, anti-social behavior for years now, though it has gotten dramatically worse, as I explained in my new book Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone.

Broomes only problem is that he then tried to both-sides the matter, asserting that conservatives and Republicans are just as bad. [T]hey hate liberals with an almost otherworldly passion, he said. They like to put bumper stickers on their cars and trucks calling Joe Biden a communist; they have convinced themselves that the blue cities and states they despise are hellscapes of crime and desolation.

Well, yeah. Bumper stickers that say Lets Go, Brandon or its more explicit counterpart are really just symbols of solidarity among voters who know that the national news media are corrupt and scammy. Thats how they mock it. As for how they describe blue cities, its a point of fact that theyve become dirty, crime-ridden tent towns. I live in D.C. I know.

Yet its not right-wingers who attest to having a visceral dislike for others who have a different opinion. Its liberals who do that.

The American Perspectives Survey, conducted in May 2021 by the Survey Center on American Life, found Democrats and liberals were more likely to say they have ended friendships because of political disagreement. Among Republicans, 10 percent said they had done so. It was double for Democrats. In terms of ideology, 28 percent of liberals said they had ended friendships over political disagreements. Only 10 percent of conservatives said the same.

An NBC poll from September 2018 found just over 35 percent of Democrats said they would be uncomfortable, at least to some degree, having close Republican friends. Only 21 percent of Republicans said the same of Democrats. By contrast, 44 percent of Republicans said they would be very comfortable with a close friend who was a Democrat. Only 26 percent of Democrats would say the same for Republicans.

In July 2017, a separate Pew survey showed that 35 percent of Democrats said the previous years election put a strain on their relationships with friends who they knew voted for Trump. Only 13 percent of Republicans said the same about friends who voted for Clinton.

Sure, there are conservatives out there who would rather not associate with liberals. But can you blame them anymore?

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read more:

WaPo Liberal Realizes How Miserable The Left Has Become - The Federalist

Sen. Chuck Grassleys office confirmed to The Federalist that the multiple FBI whistleblowers charging misconduct related to the Hunter Biden investigation only came forward in the last two months. While the existence of these new whistleblowers proves promising, other FBI agents with knowledge of misconduct or political bias must stop hiding behind the chain of command and start blowing their own whistles.

Multiple FBI whistleblowers, including those in senior positions informed the Iowa Republican senator that Washington Field Office assistant special agent in charge Timothy Thibault and other FBI officials falsely portray[ed] as disinformation evidence acquired from multiple sources that provided the FBI derogatory information related to Hunter Bidens financial and foreign business activities, even though some of that information had already been or could be verified.

The whistleblowers further charged that in August of 2020, FBI supervisory intelligence analyst Brian Auten opened an assessment, which was used by a team of agents at FBI headquarters to improperly discredit and falsely claim that derogatory information about Bidens activities was disinformation, causing investigative activity and sourcing to be shut down. The FBI headquarters team allegedly placed their assessment findings in a restricted access subfolder, effectively flagging sources and derogatory evidence related to Hunter Biden as disinformation while shielding the justification for such findings from scrutiny, Grassley revealed.

The significance of these developments cannot be overstated, for several reasons. First, the whistleblowers accuse supervisory bureau officials not merely low-level line agents with manipulating evidence related to an investigation of the son of the president of the United States. The ongoing investigation also implicates the president and his brother in the pay-to-play scandal of influence-peddling.

That reality alone should shock the core of the bureau, but there is more. The whistleblowers charges, when read in light of FBI leaks to the Washington Post, suggest that FBI Headquarters either improperly withheld information or presented inaccurate information to the U.S. attorneys office in Pittsburgh and possibly also Delaware, which were tasked with investigating Hunter Biden.

Further, by burying evidence about Hunter Biden, which at the time included the laptop he had abandoned at a Delaware repair shop, the FBI agents concealed a dangerous national security risk that both the intelligence community and Joe Biden needed to know, namely that Hunter believed Russians had stolen a second laptop that contained similarly compromising material.

The new information revealed by the FBI whistleblowers exposes yet a further scandal, which Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., highlighted in a letter he dispatched to Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz last week. In his letter, Johnson noted that while he was investigating Hunter Bidens questionable business dealings, the FBI provided him and Grassley with a supposed briefing on August 6, 2020. That briefing was not specific and was unconnected to their investigation, Johnson noted, and he and Grassley had always assumed [it] was a set up to intentionally discredit [their] ongoing work into Hunter Bidens extensive foreign financial entanglements.

In fact, as Johnson highlighted in his letter, leakers from the FBI fed the fact of the briefing to the Washington Post. The Post then framed the briefing as an extensive effort by the [FBI] to alert members of Congress that they faced a risk of being used to further Russias attempt to influence the elections outcome. That spin worked to falsely portray Grassley and Johnsons investigation into Hunter Bidens foreign financial dealings as corrupted by Russian disinformation.

Johnsons letter to the DOJ, FBI, and OIG concisely captured the significance of these facts and the horror of the scandal: If these recent whistleblower revelations are true, it would strongly suggest that the FBIs August 6, 2020, briefing was indeed a targeted effort to intentionally undermine a Congressional investigation. The FBI being weaponized against two sitting chairmen of U.S. Senate committees with constitutional oversight responsibilities would be one of the greatest episodes of Executive Branch corruption in American history.

The FBI scandal does not end there, however, and concerns not merely the alleged misconduct by a few in the upper echelon of the bureau. Rather, the fact that the whistleblowers, including those in senior positions of the FBI, are only now coming forward to expose the malfeasance they witnessed even though the investigation into Hunter Biden has been ongoing since 2018 and the alleged spiking of the evidence occurred in 2020 renders the scandal owned by the entire agency and every member of the organization.

The failure of other FBI agents and those in senior positions to object to the shameful politicization of the bureau finds its root in the Russia collusion hoax, with agents ignoring the misconduct by the bureaus leaders, such as Director James Comey, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, and FBI Special Counsel Lisa Page. FBI Special Agent William Barnett, in a detailed interview with former U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, revealed both the breadth of the bureaus partisan impropriety and the reticence of apolitical agents to challenge their bosses.

Barnett, who served as the FBIs case agent in the investigation of former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, spoke with then-U.S. Attorney Jensen after then-Attorney General William Barr tasked Jensen with reviewing the Flynn case. As The Federalist previously reported, Barnett told Department of Justice (DOJ) investigators that the handling of the probes troubled him so much that he threatened to quit working on it in one case, and threatened to go to the Inspector General in another.

A summary of Barnetts interview noted that he believed there was never any basis for the bizarre collusion theory the agency and the special counsel relentlessly pursued, to the point that agents made jokes about how they could take any piece of information and claim it was evidence of collusion. Barnett also believed the Special Counsel Office pursued Flynn simply as a means to get Trump and viewed FBI investigators as a speed bump slowing down the work of the attorneys leading the inquisition.

Jensens comprehensive summary of his interview with Barnett revealed many more extensive problems dating from 2016 and through Special Counsel Robert Muellers investigation. But it wasnt until September 2020 when Barr initiated a review of the Flynn case by a U.S. attorney outside of D.C. that Barnetts firsthand experience became known to those willing to address the corruption.

The now-former attorney general did just that when he moved to dismiss the criminal case against Flynn, concluding the FBIs questioning of Flynn that served as the basis for the criminal charge was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBIs counterintelligence investigation. The federal judge presiding over the Flynn case refused to dismiss the case, though, and with the legal wrangling continuing past the 2020 election, prompted outgoing President Donald Trump to pardon Flynn.

Beyond the numerous FBI improprieties that occurred during the Crossfire Hurricane and Mueller investigations including high-level leaks by agents the interview of Barnett revealed a follow-the-marching-orders mentality that cannot continue if agents want to restore integrity to the bureau.

While Barnett questioned the investigative theory, he did not think at the time the investigation was illegal, particularly due to the oversight by attorneys (i.e., CLINESMITH) and the direction being given by top FBI officials, the summary of Barnetts interview stated, with Barnett noting he was willing to follow instructions being given by the Deputy Director as long as it was not a violation of law.

The last two months seem to suggest a potential change in attitude, with FBI whistleblowers willing to work with outsiders committed to reform.

In addition to whistleblowers exposing the alleged misconduct related to the Biden family, they have also alerted Grassley to the FBIs politicizing of election crimes and campaign finance investigations. And with whistleblowers also alerting Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan that FBI leaders are instructing agents to reclassify cases to bolster the Biden administrations narrative that domestic violent extremism is a major threat, there is hope that the dedicated men and women of the bureau want to restore integrity to the agency.

It may be difficult for FBI agents, trained to trust the hierarchy, to reboot their reticence, but recent events establish that the FBI leadership cannot right itself. What the FBI needs, then, to rehabilitate itself is a cavalcade of whistleblowers exposing the rot within the bureau. Every agent at every level must join the few brave whistleblowers who have come forward.

If, knowing what they do now about DOJ and FBI leaderships inability to clean the political mess, agents remain mum, they will be complicit in the scandal, and Americans will no longer distinguish between the hardworking men and women of the FBI and the supposedly few bad apples we will view the entire bureau as bad.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prizethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Continue reading here:

All FBI Agents Must Blow Whistles Or They're Complicit In Hackery - The Federalist

CNN went to the Wyoming capitals annual cowboy and rodeo festival last week to learn how voters felt about their sole U.S. representative locked in an all-out feud with former President Donald Trump weeks before the state primary.

Can I cuss? said one resident bluntly when asked if she would send Rep. Liz Cheney back to Washington for a fourth term. After a nod, it was a hell no.

Absolutely not, said another by a corn dog stand.

What are your thoughts about Liz Cheney running for a fourth term? CNNs Randi Kaye asked one woman.

Personally, I think shes had three too many, she said.

On Aug. 16, voters will decide whether Cheney will keep her seat in Washington or if another candidate will take her place on the November ballot. Trump-backed attorney Harriet Hageman is the favorite to win the primary contest in a state that voted for the Republican president by a wider margin than anywhere else in the country. Last month, a poll sponsored by the Casper-Star Tribune showed Hageman leading by 22 points.

[RELATED COVERAGE: A Farce: Heres What Wyoming Voters Really Think Of Liz Cheney And Her Sham J6 Committee]

Kaye asked voters specifically what they thought about the House Jan. 6 Committee, which Cheney leads as vice chair and has weaponized to escalate a long-standing feud with President Trump. Cheney has even used the probe to go after political opponents working to unseat her in Wyoming.

Its all a hoax, its all propaganda, said the man by the corn dog stand. Its a witch hunt.

During an interview with another voter named Brett Kupec outside the rodeo stadium, Kaye conveyed Cheneys explanations for serving on the committee.

[Cheney] says shes defending whats important to people here in Wyoming, Kaye said. Upholding the rule of law, defending the Constitution.

Kupec responded by highlighting the committees absence of meaningful opposition after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi barred minority appointments.

If that was the rule of law, why doesnt [Trump] have a defense team in that courtroom? Kupec said. That aint the rule of law. Thats a kangaroo court. Thats not the Wyoming way.

Labeling the committee as a kangaroo court is a phrase Hageman told The Federalist at the fair last week that she hears often from voters around the state. So far, Hageman has traveled 36,000 miles on her campaign to replace Cheney.

That really is the moniker that people in Wyoming have used over and over again, Hageman said. Its just a kangaroo court, and theyre terribly embarrassed that our representative is a part of it.

Indeed, one voter told CNN Cheney has been an embarrassment.

The network ended the segment with interviews of two Cheney supporters, the only two that Kay conceded the television crew could find at the entire event in Wyomings largest city.

Shawn McKee told CNN he stood by Cheney because she wants to maintain the integrity of the state.

She wants to make it to where its not so much federally controlled, McKee said.

Cheney, however, now the vice chair of Pelosis Jan. 6 panel, no longer serves on the House Natural Resources Committee navigating the states myriad of public land issues despite nearly half the state being under federal jurisdiction.

This is one of the first times in Wyomings history that Wyomings congressional representative is not on the Natural Resources Committee, Hageman told The Federalist at the Frontier Days festival, adding she expects an appointment if elected.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthys office confirmed to The Federalist the Republican leader will back Hagemans request for an assignment to the committee but added final placement would ultimately be up to the Steering Committee after the midterms.

Trump took a victory lap over CNNs Friday segment with a press release on Monday.

ICYMI: CNN Goes to Wyoming, the former president wrote, sharing a tweet from Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Excerpt from:

CNN Struggles To Find People In Wyoming Who Like Liz Cheney - The Federalist

Amid the Biden administrations recession, Congress is reportedly planning to increase taxes. Democrats Build Back Better legislation, which would raise taxes to fund green energy subsidies, appears to be getting a second chance.

This legislation, however, contradicts advice even Democrats have repeatedly given: Dont raise taxes during a recession. Republican Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri put together a list of times prominent Democrats have given the very advice they are now ignoring.

If were in a recession I dont think Sen. Obama or anyone else is going to raise any taxes, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said going into the 2008 presidential election. You dont want to take money out of the economy when the economy is shrinking.

Later that year, Barack Obama won his first presidential election, and the next year, he expressed agreement with Schumer: The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession, the then-president said.

Yet this is precisely what Democrats in Congress are now advocating. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin has reportedly reached a deal with Schumer during the ongoing recession that would increase many Americans taxes.

Even Manchin himself said in 2010 that a recession was not the time for a tax hike. I dont think during a time of recession you mess with any of the taxes or increase any taxes, Manchin said.

Manchin has now told Fox Newss Bret Baier that the bill would only close loopholes and not raise taxes, but according to Michael Shellenberger, the founder and president of Environmental Progress, the 15 percent minimum corporate tax in the bill would likely result in a tax increase for many individual Americans.

It is standard economic practice to assume that companies would pass along at least some of their tax increase to employees, Shellenberger said.

In fact, Congresss own Joint Committee on Taxation found that there would would indeed be an increase, which would be even greater for ordinary American workers than for the wealthy. Recall that this is in violation of President Joe Bidens repeated promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $400,000 annually.

As Shellenberger wrote: A new study by the U.S. Congresss nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has found that not only would the legislation increase taxes, it would increase taxes by $11 billion more on Americans earning below $200,000 per year than on Americans earning between $500,000 and $1 million, in 2023. And the legislation would increase taxes by $3 billion more on Americans earning below $200,000 per year than on Americans earning between $200,000 and $500,000 per year.

Regardless of how corporate media might try to spin it, the economy is in a recession, and Democrats are abandoning their own advice by attempting to raise taxes when America can least afford it.

Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read the rest here:

Dems Do What They Warned Against: Raise Taxes Amid Recession - The Federalist

Days before the Capitol riot provoked a years-long effort to impeach, prosecute, and politically malign former President Donald Trump, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney coordinated efforts to deter the very actions she now claims haunt the former president.

Cheney has blamed Trump for not ordering the National Guard to defend the Capitol complex, even though multiple sources confirm that he authorized their deployment days prior to the Jan. 6 rally at the White House and riot at the Capitol. Security officials in charge of the Capitol declined to call up troops to protect it, government records show.

Yet Cheney herself seems to have orchestrated opposition to use of the military to quell election-related unrest, allegedly organizing a Washington Post op-ed on Jan. 3, 2021, signed by every living former defense secretary.

All 10 living former defense secretaries: Involving the military in election disputes would cross into dangerous territory, the headline read. It went on to threaten any military official who thought any use of the military might be a good idea. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic, the op-ed warned.

The op-ed was allegedly organized by Cheney, whose father was secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush before serving as President George W. Bushs vice president. Eric Edelman, a national security adviser to Dick Cheney, told the New Yorker the Wyoming lawmaker was the one who generated the piece for the Post.

Now Rep. Cheney has adopted Trumps supposed inaction on the National Guard as a primary line of attack. On Fox News Sunday, Cheney again depicted Trump as an apathetic leader who dismissed pleas to deploy the National Guard while the Capitol was under siege.

There are several witnesses who say they met with President Trump on January 4th, said Bret Baier, and he offered some 20,000 National Guardsmen to protect the Capitol building on January 6th but the offer was rejected. Is that true?

His own acting secretary of defense says thats not true, Cheney said, highlighting committee testimony from former Acting Secretary Christopher Miller who told the panel Trump made no order to deploy the National Guard. So the notion that somehow he issued an order is not consistent with the facts.

Except the president did issue authorization for D.C. leaders to call up the National Guard for pre-emptive reinforcements days before the Capitol riot. While Mayor Muriel Bowser took limited advantage of the extra troops, House Speaker Nancy Pelosis sergeant at arms rejected or stonewalled the offer six times, according to former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund. Pelosis office was reportedly concerned the guards deployment was bad optics after having spent the prior summer decrying the use of federal law enforcement to put down left-wing insurrections.

When Trump sent reinforcements to secure federal buildings under attack in Portland, Pelosi condemned the extra law enforcement as stormtroopers. After days of sustained riots wreaked havoc across Washington D.C., Pelosi called the sight of uniformed troops protecting the Lincoln Memorial stunning and scary.

The campaign to fight any use of troops to restore order during the lefts widespread and coordinated summer of rage was so effective that Gen. Mark Milley issued an abject apology for merely appearing in uniform at a site that had been ravaged by leftist arsonists.

My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics, Milley said about appearing in front of a historic church across the street from the White House. The night before, left-wing arsonists had targeted the church as part of a riot that besieged the White House and led to the injuring of dozens of Park Police and Secret Service officers.

Bowsers use of guard troops on Jan. 6 extended to unarmed troops restricted to traffic control and removed from protests.

[N]o DCNG personnel shall be armed during this mission, and at no time, will DCNG personnel or assets be engaged in domestic surveillance, searches, or seizures of [U.S.] persons, she directed to law enforcement.

Although Cheney and her colleagues with the Select Committee have sought to indict Trump as responsible for a slow response from the National Guard on Jan. 6, the panels own findings have undermined the probes point. In December, the committee released a trove of private communications from former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who pledged the National Guard would be ready to maintain order.

Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to protect pro Trump people and that many more would be available on standby, the committee wrote, as if revealing some grand scandal to help their case.

In June, Miller and former Chief of Staff of the Department of Defense Kash Patel went on Sean Hannitys program to dispel committee accusations that the president was indifferent to the National Guard.

Mr. Trump unequivocally authorized up to 20,000 National Guardsmen and women for us to utilize, Patel said.

Miller, whom Cheney cited as evidence of Trumps negligence, corroborated Patels testimony on air.

To be clear, Miller said, the president was doing exactly what I expect the commander in chief to do, any commander in chief to do. He was looking at the broad threats against the United States and he brought this up on his own. We did not bring it up.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

See the article here:

Liz Cheney Is Lying About Trump's Inaction On The National Guard - The Federalist

Last week, House Democrats forced a snap vote on a bill that aims to codify same-sex marriage and more in federal law. The House passed the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) 267-157. Forty-seven Republicans joined the majority.

The bill could come up for a vote in the Senate in the next two weeks. If enough Republican senators join the Democrats to overcome a filibuster, President Biden could sign it into law before the 2022 election.

The RMA seeks to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage in federal law as a legal union of one man and one woman and protected states that sought to do the same.

But this is old news. In Windsor (2013) and Obergefell (2015), the Supreme Court gutted DOMA. In the latter decision, they struck down the federal definition of marriage and forced all states to recognize and facilitate same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage is already a legal reality in all 50 states. So, why have Democrats in Congress decided to push this bill? At a time of record-high inflation, an epidemic of fentanyl overdoses, a war in Europe, surging violence in cities, and illegal immigrants pouring across our southern border, why burn precious time to shore up same-sex marriage, which isnt at risk?

The Democrats excuse for this diversion is a comment by Clarence Thomas. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs in June, Justice Thomas suggested that, in the future, the court should revisit its use of substantive due process in cases including Obergefell. Some speculate that perhaps a future court could follow Thomas thread, overturn the decision and return questions of marriage to the states. The horror.

This logic seems strained. In his majority Dobbs opinion, with which Thomas concurred, Justice Alito insisted that the Dobbs ruling did not implicate Obergefell and other cases that do not involve questions of unborn human life.

Besides, conservatives are not rallying to overturn Obergefell. There are no cases working their way through the courts that could threaten that 2015 decision.

So why the hype about Obergefell at risk? The answer, in two words: political panic. The Democrats fear an electoral blowout in November. RMA is their attempt to fire up the progressive base and force Republicans in more liberal districts to cast an awkward vote. A vote against the bill could anger certain swing voters. A vote in its favor could dispirit the GOP base.

But RMA does more than just repeal DOMA.For starters, it creates a private right of action. In effect, it deputizes activists to sueanyone who holds that marriage is between one man and a woman and operates under color of state law. In the past, the Supreme Court has suggestedthat acting under color of state law might apply to private groups that participate in a joint activity with a state.

So, for example, religious foster care and adoption agencies may be sued if they perform state functions through child placement. Indeed, Philadelphia already tried to ban religious foster care providers from its programs for these reasons. Should RMA pass, its not a question of if activists will sue religious groups but how often.

The bill also would provide what are known as national policy grounds for the Internal Revenue Services to deny tax-exempt status to nonprofit religious organizations that believe in natural marriage.

Its no accident that this bill comes amid the administrations efforts to redefine sex under Title IX and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. It serves to further weaken the recognition of meaningful differences between males and females in federal law.

Moreover, the bill is a Trojan horse for ideas even more radical than same-sex marriage. As written, the bill would require the federal government to recognize polygamy as marriage if even one state legalizes it. This would touch many federal laws and regulations on marriage, from welfare to parental rights.

The nature of marriage did not change after 2015, when the Supreme Court decided to follow the drift of elite opinion rather than follow nature, history, and common sense. Marriage is a social institution ordered toward the bearing and rearing of children. It formalizes a natural truth: that it takes exactly one man and one woman to reproduce. And we know that children flourish best in a stable home with both mom and dad because the two sexes complement each other.

This is why the state has a special interest in marriage and monogamy. The family, headed by a married man and woman, is the most basic unit of society. When it is strong, that strength radiates outward to the body politic. When marriage decays, so does the family and the body politic with it.

The state has no clear interest in romantic feelings, sexual orientations, and the like. These generally fall outside the reach of law and politics. Thats why legal recognition of natural marriage is not and never has been discrimination against single people or against people who identify as gay or lesbian.

Liberals can read polls and scroll through social media. They surely know their views on abortion (up to the moment of birth) and gender (teenagers consenting to their own sterilization) are unpopular. Democrats are trying to get media attention off their ghoulish views and the Biden administrations manifest failures and onto something that polls more in their favor.

Most people say they favor same-sex marriage. But how many will view it as a make-or-break issue in the next election especially since same-sex marriage is not even at risk? Some may fall for the Democrats fearmongering. But its much more likely that people in the GOP base will see this as a gratuitous slap to the face of people of faith. And theyd be right.

The Democrats have set a trap. They hope to catch 10 GOP senators and avoid a filibuster on the bill. The question is whether there are 10 gullible enough to fall for it.

Jay Richards is the Director and William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at the HeritageFoundations DeVos Center for Life, Family, and Religion. Jared Eckert is a research assistantin the same center.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read the rest here:

Democrats Fixate On Gay Marriage While The Country Crumbles - The Federalist

The year was 1984. President Ronald Reagan was cruising to reelection. Van Halens 1984 was second on the Billboard charts. George Orwells 1984 hadnt yet become an instruction manual. Top Gun, inspired by a 1983 article titled Top Guns and published by California magazine, was then but a gleam in Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimers eyes, though it would go on to become a classic tale of how reckless men are a testament to Americas greatness in the face of Soviet aggression.

Life was good, particularly after Reagan had successfully battled both Jimmy Carters stagflation and the malaise it brought on. Mullets were a hot hairstyle for men. For women, it was ozone-depleting bouffant bangs teased toward the heavens with massive amounts of hairspray. Gen X kids were off starting fires, sneaking into drained pools to skateboard, and otherwise engaging in all kinds of shenanigans about which our parents had very little clue. Joe Biden was merely a senator.

Today, mullets are back, if not the bangs. Top Gun: Maverick, the long-awaited sequel to the original, is making money hand over fist. Joe Biden, first elected to the Senate in 1972, is still in the swamp, this time as the ostensible leader of the free world and heir to Jimmy Carter. Russia is being belligerent. Stagflation and malaise again rule the day.

In other words, life is not so good right now, but as Mark Twain never said, History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. And in the couplet that is Top Gun to Top Gun: Maverick, there is hope.

When Top Gun was released in May of 1986, it was not an immediate success. At the time, Tom Cruise, the anhedonic real-life iteration of Dorian Gray, was not yet the superstar he is today. The movie was competing with a raft of other stellar films including Ferris Buellers Day Off, Back to School, Aliens, Big Trouble in Little China, and the early Marvel Cinematic Universe entry Howard the Duck, just to name a few.

But Pete Maverick Mitchell quickly inspired legions of fans with his rakish good looks and indifference toward remaining alive and pushed the movie to the summers top spot. To say women wanted to be with him while men wanted to be him is an understatement. Following the movies success, applications to the United States aviation forces increased by 500 percent.

Rewatching it ahead of Top Gun: Maverick, however, I was reminded that the critics complaints had some merit. The original movie is kind of a chick flick, which helps explain why my wife was so anxious to see Maverick during its opening weekend. I opted to grill while she went with our oldest. It would be a few weeks before I would take her to her second viewing and realize the folly of my thinking.

If the original was a chick flick, though, Maverick is the action-packed sequel for the dudes. But being a movie that appeals to the opposite of dudettes is not what makes it such a movie for the times. Instead, its that after watching it, you come out of the theater ready to pump your fist and shout about Americas greatness. Sure, its all nonsense and, spoiler alert, Maverick would have died in the opening sequence had it been real, but the film makes no apologies. It doesnt equivocate or attempt to explain why its okay to cheer for the good guys. Its just ridiculous and reckless Americans being ridiculous and reckless, inviting us along for the ride, and saying, This is who we are and what we can do.

In 2022, thats a bold choice. Its not cool to celebrate America because systemic this and institutionalized that. And there arent a lot of things to cheer about at the moment, particularly when it comes to our national mood, soaring prices, and energy shortages. In those lights, though, Maverick could also be a harbinger that the pendulum is about to swing in the other direction, much as it did in the fabled decade during which the first installment was released.

For as David Lee Roth sang on Jump, the first single from 1984s 1984, And I know, baby, just how you feel/You got to roll with the punches and get to whats real. And while none of us would have chosen the punches were currently rolling with, the chance for history to rhyme is looking good.

Having said that, though, its not time to get out the hairspray and tease those bangs back toward the heavens, ladies. While we may take inspiration from the past, weve got to live for the future.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Follow this link:

'Maverick' And Why We May Be Close To A Return To The '80s - The Federalist