Seattle Officials Who Deleted Texts to Cover Up CHAZ Fiasco Won’t Face Charges

Molly Bruns
-
0
Seattle Officials Who Deleted Texts to Cover Up CHAZ Fiasco Won’t Face Charges

(Molly Bruns, Headline USA) Former Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, former Police Chief Carmen Best, Fire Chief Harold Scoggins and several other high-ranking Seattle officials dodged criminal charges despite deleting thousands of texts concerning the 2020 Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

King County law enforcement, in collusion with prosecuting attorneys Leesa Manion and Dan Clark, stated that based on their legal analysis they “conclude[d] that there [was] no legal basis to file criminal charges in this case,” according to the Post Millennial.

The King County Sheriff’s Office Criminal Intelligence Unit penned a summary of all of the evidence and concurred that there was no evidence of a conspiracy to destroy public records.

“I have found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy to destroy public records contained in any city cell phones, and no evidence that unauthorized access from outside the city had caused the loss of data,” the report read.

The sheriff’s office claimed that the deleting of the texts was an accident with no specific culprit.

“It was a perfect storm of training delinquencies, outdated and conflicting policies and procedures, and insufficient safeguards to prevent the loss of records that primarily contributed to the destruction of these text messages,” the report detailed. The sheriff concluded that without this key evidence the ability to file charges was rendered impossible.

The conclusion was reached despite a judge having previously sanctioned the city for destroying evidence and noting that Durkan’s excuses “strained credibility,” the Post reported. The city was also ordered to pay nearly $200,000 last year to settle a lawsuit brought by the Seattle Times for allegedly mishandling information requests for messages between city officials.

Manion kept the investigation inside her department, despite being known acquaintances with Durkan and Best.

Durkan’s office initially claimed that an “unknown technology issue” wiped out the text messages, but a forensic investigation revealed that Durkan set her phone to delete texts automatically after 30 days.

She also said she dropped her phone in a tide pool on July 4th weekend in 2020. This also turned out to be a lie, as the forensic report revealed the texts were deleted manually.

Best allegedly deleted 27,000 texts from her phone, and Scoggins reset his mobile device in October 2020. Several high-ranking county officials implicated in the cover up claimed they had to reset their phones because they forgot their passwords.

Missing texts included messages with CHAZ leader, Raz Simone.

Two Red-Pilled Liberals Say Dems Trying to ‘Sabotage’ Biden by Leaking Damning Info

Corine Gatti
-
0
Two Red-Pilled Liberals Say Dems Trying to ‘Sabotage’ Biden by Leaking Damning Info

(Corine Gatti, Headline USA) Leading Democrats concerned that President Joe Biden’s age and declining cognitive abilities are threats to the party retaining control of the White House are reportedly looking for ways to sabotage the embattled octogenarian, the Daily Caller reported. 

As with most of his time in office, Biden blundered his way through last week. His staffers rushed to cut off the president during a press conference in Vietnam as he began to go off on a rambling answer to a reporter’s question and said he had to go to bed.

That same week he was a no-show at the 9/11 New York City memorial. Instead, he marked the 22nd anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in Alaska. Then he lied, saying he visited ground zero in New York City the day after the attack.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., this week called for an impeachment inquiry into Biden, raising the stakes ahead of the 2024 presidential election — causing angst among Biden supporters, the news outlet noted.

“I think obviously, the people who really know the truth about what Joe Biden or Hunter Biden were doing inside Ukraine are people in the intelligence community and this is where it’s coming from,” journalist Glenn Greenwald told Fox News host Jesse Watters.

“I also really think, though, Joe Biden is turning into Jell-O and so is his body and the more time that goes by the worse that gets,” Greenwald said. “I don’t know what drugs exist to hide that for a debate, but I don’t think there are anymore.”

Biden’s age has made him more prone to falls and stumbles, with incidents occurring during the Air Force Academy graduation, biking in June 2022 and falling twice on the Air Force One steps.

The White House admitted that Biden was using a shorter staircase to board Air Force One due to concerns that he would publicly trip while walking up the stairs.

Furthermore, Biden held only a couple full press conferences in two and a half years at the White House—with staff pre-selects questions, according to reports, adding to concerns.

Greenwald suggested there were sectors in the Democrat Party trying to “sabotage him” by leaking information to the public about alleged crimes.

Podcaster and comedian Joe Rogan likewise floated the sabotage theory three weeks ago and said, “All this stuff that’s coming out slowly but surely about Biden is on purpose,” Rogan said, according to the Daily Mail.

“I think he wants to run again. And I don’t think the Democrats think that he can win. I think they’re right. And I think they’re going to slowly but surely expose more of these like very clear pieces of evidence of corruption,” Rogan said.

Both Greenwald and Rogan are unique in that neither are conventional conservatives who are deeply invested in selling the party line. Both, in fact, are traditional liberals who have since become “red-pilled” by Democrats’ shift to the extreme Left during the Trump and Biden administrations.

Red-Faced Whitmer Kidnap Prosecutor Attacks the Free Press Again

Ken Silva
-
0
Red-Faced Whitmer Kidnap Prosecutor Attacks the Free Press Again

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) Michigan Assistant Attorney General Bill Rollstin has made a habit of attacking the free press during the ongoing trial of three men accused of helping plot to kidnap the state’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer.

Rollstin did it again Wednesday when he spazzed on independent journalist Christina Urso, who was in the courtroom covering the case. Urso apparently stood up to count the jurors while the prosecutor was making his closing arguments—and to Rollstin, this was unacceptable.

“This individual right here was standing up and pointing and counting to the jurors, and taking notes,” Rollstin said, turning beet-red and jutting out his finger at Urso.

“That’s very concerning to me! I don’t know who she is or why she’s doing that. I’d ask the court to instruct her to not in any way try to intimidate this jury, to remain seated, and—like everyone else in this gallery—behave!”

Rollstin’s claim to not know Urso is a bald-faced lie, as the government spied on the journalist when she interviewed two of the Whitmer kidnap defendants in prison earlier this year.

In any event, Judge Charles Hamlyn seemed to take the prosecution’s outburst with a grain of salt—giving a general warning to everyone in the courtroom before turning to other matters.

“I’ll instruct everybody to remain seated if they’re viewing this process. If somebody needs to move to see an exhibit, but basically if you’re not the attorney talking, remain seated,” the judge said.

While Rollstin’s attack was unbecoming of a prosecutor who swore to uphold the Constitution, it wasn’t the first time he has attacked the free press in this case.

In April, the red-faced prosecutor attacked another journalist, Eric VanDussen, after VanDussen had asked Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel why her office has repeatedly falsely said the men on trial were part of the “Wolverine Watchmen.”

VanDussen’s question was a good one. An FBI agent in the case has already testified that the defendants weren’t members of the Wolverine Watchmen, and defense counsel has raised concerns that referring to the defendants as Watchmen—the main group that allegedly conspired to kidnap Whitmer—will prejudice a jury against them.

Nevertheless, Rollstin accused VanDussen of being an “agitator”—accusing him of working with the defense, rather than being an independent journalist.

“If I had to guess, I’ll bet Mr. VanDussen’s in the courtroom today. He was out at the townhall meeting last Friday … And [the attorney general] was questioned by Mr. VanDussen about the Wolverine Watchmen,” Rollstin said. “And remember, Mr. Vandussen is working very closely with [the defense]. He’s somewhat of an agitator, if you will.”

Rollstin then doubled down on referring to the defendants as Watchmen.

“The defendants are part of the Wolverine Watchmen to the extent that they’re all co-conspirators,” he said.

That April attack on VanDussen also wasn’t the first time Rollstin has spread false information about the Whitmer case.

In March, he falsely accused one of the alleged plotters of issuing a $1,000 bounty against an FBI informant who betrayed him.

The closing arguments have finished, and the jury is deliberating as of the publication of this article. The defendants are Eric Molitor, Michael Null and William Null.

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/jd_cashless.

Libertarian Party Seeks Court-Appointed Guardian for ‘Mentally Incapacitated’ Biden and McConnell

Robert Jonathan
-
0
Libertarian Party Seeks Court-Appointed Guardian for ‘Mentally Incapacitated’ Biden and McConnell

(Robert Jonathan, Headline USA) Through legal counsel, the Libertarian Party claims that it intends to file petitions in a Washington, D.C., court to obtain a conservatorship for Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell.

The Libertarian National Committee seems fed-up with what it described as health-challenged “geriatric elites squatting in public office” who no longer possessing the mental capacity or fitness to do their job for the American people.

Making matters worse, the so-called squatters have raked in big bucks “from lobbyists, Super PACs, and tax dollars, while the average American feels the pain of inflation and watches their savings dwindle,” the party declared.

In general, a conservatorship results in a court-approved legal guardianship, roughly equivalent to a power of attorney, as a way to take charge of a range of affairs for an adult who lacks the ability to handle things on his or her own.

This guardian appointment procedure is usually handled in probate court or in family court and is typically prompted by someone close to the situation, such as an immediate relative.

Although it’s extremely unlikely, if not inconceivable, that a court would grant the Libertarian petitions, the political organization denied on Twitter that the impending legal filing merely constitutes political theater.

It instead insisted that the conservatorships are “a matter of utmost urgency.”

With regard to Biden and McConnell, the party asserted in a press release that “The clear incapacitation, mental lapses, and deficiencies in decision-making that are clearly observable in numerous, recent, and well-publicized instances necessitate these actions.”

The fundamental issue seems less about chronological age (although the latter seems to be a concern for Biden-leaning voters) and more about health/vitality.

As well documented, Democrat President Biden, 80, seems perpetually confused, and McConnell, 81, the GOP Minority Leader in the U.S. Senate, has appeared frozen in public on several occasions.

The party underscored that the duo are hardly ordinary senior citizens playing shuffleboard or bingo in a Florida retirement community or eating Jell-O in a nursing home cafeteria.

“The decisions made in the Oval Office and on the Senate floor have far-reaching implications, affecting both domestic policy and international relations. If the individuals making these decisions aren’t at their cognitive best, the consequences could be dire.”

According to Libertarian National Committee Chair Angela McArdle, “Elected officials like Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell exhibit regular and very public episodes of embarrassing disorientation, mental confusion, and stroke symptoms”

She added that “These men, and others like them (like Dianne Feinstein and John Fetterman) are not well enough to be left alone in the house all day. How are they well enough to govern our lives and spend our tax dollars?”

The conservatorship petitions apparently have already been drafted in advance of a formal court submission.

The Spectator opined that “The petition is a clever stunt — funny because it’s so true. There’s something deeply wrong with America’s leadership and everyone knows it.”

McArdle told Newsweek that Nancy Pelosi, 83, is the same cohort. Pelosi recently announced that she is seeking reelection to the U.S. House.

“It’s crazy to me that they’re still running the country and making major financial decisions,” McArdle remarked.

The Libertarian official acknowledged that obtaining a court-order conservatorship for the two longtime politicians will be no easy task.

“But we’re committed to filing this thing and we wanted to send a really strong statement that we’re serious about getting someone in the White House who has the mental capacity to run the country because we don’t have that right now.”

The Libertarians are America’s third-largest party and “are far too eccentric to win power,” the Spectator asserted.

Unfortunately, the avowed pro-freedom party has from time to time perhaps paradoxically tipped some close elections to Democrats in three-way contests.

As part of its announcement, the Libertarian Party called out Biden and McConnell for “the indefensible incurrence of $4.8 Trillion in debt, continued involvement in an unwinnable proxy war in Ukraine, questionable and potentially criminal business and political affiliations, and lack of awareness to the state of the United States domestically.”

While this conservatorship filing seems symbolic, McArdle explained that “We’re not interested in treating [Mr. Biden] like Britney Spears and locking them up…but we are interested in stopping him from doing more harm to this country financially.”

Ramaswamy Proposes Cutting Federal Workforce by 75%

Editor 1
-
0
Ramaswamy Proposes Cutting Federal Workforce by 75%

(Brett Rowland, The Center Square) Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy proposed cutting 75% of the federal workforce in a speech Wednesday aimed at shutting down what he called the “administrative state.”

“The people who we elect to run the government ought to be the ones who actually run the government—not the managerial bureaucracy in three-letter government agencies,” he said during a speech at the America First Policy Institute in Washington D.C.

Ramaswamy said he would reduce the federal workforce by 75% by the end of his first term if elected president. He said 50% of those cuts could be made in his first year.

The federal government employs about 2.25 million military personnel. About 1 million of those are reservists.

The federal government has about 2.25 million civilian personnel. About 60% of those employees work for the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Ramaswamy said he would shutter the FBI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the U.S. Department of Education; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Services.

“We’re going to have to confront several myths that have been perpetuated in this town by advisers and members of the very bureaucracy we’re looking to shut down,” he said, “that we’re going to have to confront and overcome to understand how the U.S. President can actually get this job done.”

Ramaswamy promised “large-scale mass layoffs” could be accomplished single-handedly by the president.

Any plan for mass federal layoffs would likely face legal and political challenges.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, another Republican presidential candidate behind in the polls, has proposed cutting the federal civilian workforce by 10%.

That more modest proposal would be tough, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that features several former senators—as well as notorious deep-stater Leon Panetta, the former Obama defense secretary and CIA director—on its board.

“Laying off that many current employees all at once would require substantial changes to laws surrounding federal workers and could be highly disruptive,” noted the CRFB.

“More likely, lawmakers would implement this policy by shrinking the federal workforce through attrition—for example, by hiring no more than one new employee for every two employees that leave or retire,” it claimed.

The Congressional Budget Office studied the attrition budget option in 2018. That proposed reducing the workforce at each federal agency by 10% through attrition while allowing the President to exempt certain agencies for national security reasons or emergency needs.

The CBO estimated at the time that this option would reduce the deficit by $5.3 billion to $35 billion from 2019 through 2028.

New Hampshire Attorney Gen. Clarifies Trump’s Ballot-Eligibility Questions

Editor 1
-
0
New Hampshire Attorney Gen. Clarifies Trump’s Ballot-Eligibility Questions

(Sarah Roderick-Fitch, The Center Square) New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella has sent a letter to the secretary of state and chairman of the Ballot Law Commission to “provide guidance” on his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

He says the secretary of state is not given “discretion to withhold a candidate’s name from the ballot.”

In the letter sent to Secretary of State David Scanlon and Chairman Bradford Cook, Formella clarifies that the secretary of state must place a presidential primary candidate’s name on the ballot if the candidate files in time and pays the appropriate filing fees.

In addition, Formella underscored a presumption of innocence concerning the constitutional amendment.

“[The secretary of state cannot] withhold a candidate’s name from the ballot on the grounds that the candidate may be disqualified under Section 3 when a candidate has not been convicted or otherwise adjudicated guilty of conduct that would disqualify a candidate under Section 3,” the attorney general wrote.

Formella also addressed the Ballot Law Commission’s authority to hear disputes regarding whether “declarations of candidacy conform with the law” in the letter.

“The commission’s authority is limited to reviewing the sufficiency of a declaration of candidacy and does not extend to hearing disputes over whether a candidate is disqualified under Section 3,” said Formella.

The legal guidance request is in response to a request to clarify whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could be used to disqualify former President Donald Trump from holding the office of president again—specifically stemming from charges filed against the former president alleging his involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol uprising.

Several political leaders and candidates have proposed barring Trump from many state ballots, citing the 14th Amendment, including some Republicans.

Former U.S. Senate candidate Bryant “Corky” Messner, who campaigned off Trump’s endorsement in 2020, has been vocal in calling the former president’s ballot eligibility into question on the grounds of the 14th Amendment.

While several other political leaders question the eligibility of a Trump candidacy, campaign eyes eagerly await an announcement from Scanlon on when he will set the New Hampshire primary, maintaining the state’s first-in-the-nation status.

As Texas’s House RINOs Rest Impeachment Case, Paxton Argues Insufficient Evidence

Editor 1
-
0
As Texas’s House RINOs Rest Impeachment Case, Paxton Argues Insufficient Evidence

(Bethany Blankley, The Center Square) After seven days of hearing from witnesses, the Texas House rested its case in the impeachment trial of suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton on Wednesday afternoon.

After a dominating early performance that saw witnesses for the House, including a so-called FBI whistleblower, admit they had no real case against the state’s top prosecutor, Paxton’s attorneys filed a motion challenging the insufficiency of evidence.

The House Managers filed a motion to amend the Senate rules to bar the conservative Paxton—who defeated George P. Bush, the nephew of former President George W. Bush, in the 2022 election—from ever holding office again.

The House was required by Senate Rule 25 to present a case with a “burden of proof… beyond a reasonable doubt” and present evidence to support the allegations filed in the articles of impeachment.

Paxton’s attorneys argue they didn’t do that and filed a motion for a directed verdict on each of the articles of impeachment.

Paxton attorney Tony Buzbee told Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who’s presiding over the trial, that they’d filed the motion late Wednesday afternoon.

In response, Patrick said, “Pursuant to the rules adopted by the Senate, there’s a motion for a directed verdict … which must be submitted for a vote to members of the court.”

The motion is “a challenge to the insufficiency of the evidence. Therefore, these motions will go to the senators.”

The Senate rules require a majority of the senators, 16, to grant a motion. If a majority isn’t reached, the motion fails.

Prior to Buzbee’s motion, the House called its last witness and rested its case Wednesday afternoon.

House lead attorney Dusty Hardin said the House rested its case after direct examination of his last witness was finished but did so without allowing Paxton’s attorneys to cross-examine. It’s unclear if this was an oversight or intentional. Buzbee said he reserved the right to recall the witness.

After resting the House Manager’s case, Hardin immediately filed a motion to amend the Senate Rules on their behalf.

The Senate deliberated on the rules for weeks and announced them on June 21, 2023. The House Managers were not involved in the Senate rule-making process. They asked for the rules to be changed three months after they were adopted and before closing arguments were made and the senators voted.

Their motion asks the Senate to amend Rules 27 and 30(a), which govern how the court deliberates after final arguments are made and the process for any article receiving a conviction, respectively.

According to the Senate rules, if any article of impeachment is sustained and Paxton is convicted, he is to be removed from office. However, the rules don’t automatically require that he be prevented from holding office in Texas in the future.

The House Managers not only want Paxton removed from office, but they also want him to be disqualified from ever holding office in the state of Texas again, as Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, has repeatedly argued.

Their motion argues the Senate rules are inconsistent with the Texas Constitution, which Hardin argues requires “that a state official who is convicted of committing impeachable offenses be both removed and disqualified from holding future office.”

The motion states that “the plain language of the Texas Constitution requires the Senate to not only remove, but also disqualify a state official from holding future office for committing impeachable conduct.”

Hardin argues in the motion that not preventing Paxton from holding office again would “frustrate” the impeachment process. The motion also proposes rewritten versions of Senate Rules 27 and 30(a).

In response, Paxton’s attorneys also filed a motion arguing Hardin’s motion “should be either denied outright or deferred until after a vote on Attorney General Paxton’s innocence.”

Should the Senate vote to acquit Paxton later this week or early next week, Paxton’s attorneys argue, the acquittal “will moot this late-breaking question raised by the House and will make any consideration of this motion unnecessary.”

“As the House itself points out,” they continue, “every precedent weighs against the House’s position. Modifying 100 years of precedent on the fly and at the last minute would not respect the gravity of precedent—or this process.”

They also argue the House is “wrong on the merits in their misreading of the Constitution.”

Patrick said an answer would be reached on the motions on Thursday morning, and the senators would vote on them.

As of Wednesday evening, Paxton’s motion for a directed verdict was not yet posted on the Senate Court of Impeachment website. Both of the motions regarding changing the rules were.

Headline USA’s Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

Romney’s Retirement Reveals Insidious Twist to Possible J6 Cover-Up

Mark Pellin
-
0
Romney’s Retirement Reveals Insidious Twist to Possible J6 Cover-Up

(Mark Pellin, Headline USA) Excerpts from an upcoming biography overshadowed Sen. Mitt Romney’s announcement Wednesday that he would not be seeking re-election, sparking new questions about his role in events preceding the J6 protests and short-lived riot.

Timed to Romney’s retirement announcement, The Atlantic published excerpts of Romney: A Reckoning, which dropped several bombshell revelations. Among the most shocking was a reported exchange between Romney and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that warned of potential J6 dangers.

According to the book’s excerpt, Romney received a warning on Jan. 2, 2021, from Angus King, the junior senator from Maine, that he had been informed from a “high-ranking Pentagon official,” that “Law enforcement has been tracking online chatter among right-wing extremists who appear to be planning something bad on the day of Donald Trump’s upcoming rally in Washington, D.C.”

The warning Romney received was depicted as ominously predicting widespread chaos: “The president has been telling them the election was stolen; now they’re coming to steal it back. There’s talk of gun smuggling, of bombs and arson, of targeting the traitors in Congress who are responsible for this travesty. Romney’s name has been popping up in some frightening corners of the internet, which is why King needed to talk to him. He isn’t sure Romney will be safe.”

After the phone conversation, Romney reportedly texted McConnell:

“In case you have not heard this, I just got a call from Angus King, who said that he had spoken with a senior official at the Pentagon who reports that they are seeing very disturbing social media traffic regarding the protests planned on the 6th. There are calls to burn down your home, Mitch; to smuggle guns into DC, and to storm the Capitol. I hope that sufficient security plans are in place, but I am concerned that the instigator—the President—is the one who commands the reinforcements the DC and Capitol police might require.”

McConnell never responds.

The revelation raised serious concerns and questions that needed to be asked and answered, said American Greatness writer and investigative reporter Julie Kelly.

“Why are we learning this now? Why didn’t Romney provide that info to J6 committee? Was Senator King interviewed? Where is this alleged intelligence?” Kelly tweeted. “I strongly suspect Pentagon official was Mark Milley, who was heavily involved in pre-J6 calls, prep. He then classified it all.”

Jim Stinson, Tampa Bay editor for Business Observer, shared his perspective, writing that “Mitt likely conspired with the Jan6 Committee to suppress the other side of the issue: that DC bigshots knew there would be trouble. They knew bad actors were studying the tunnels. They knew it all.”

McConnell’s reported lack of response was particularly egregious given his condemnation of Trump for the riots that broke out from an originally peaceful protest.

“There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” McConnell said, according to The Hill. “A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him.”

Mark Pellin is an editor at Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/sabrepaw70.

Federal Judge Knocks Down DACA, Rules Obama’s ‘Dreamers’ Scheme Illegal

Mark Pellin
-
0
Federal Judge Knocks Down DACA, Rules Obama’s ‘Dreamers’ Scheme Illegal

(Mark Pellin, Headline USA) A few minor tweaks and some revised language to Barack Obama’s 2012 executive fiat that sidestepped Congress to allow hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought into the country illegally to avoid deportation was ruled unlawful by a federal judge.

Democrats and leftists erupted in outrage at Wednesday’s ruling, even though it stopped short of immediately ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and will continue to afford so-called Dreamers their existing protections that shield children of illegal immigrants from deportation and allow retention of existing work authorizations.

As of March, there were upwards of 600,000 illegal aliens who remain in the country as Dreamers, according to U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services.  

“Litigation revolving around the legality of DACA, in one form or another, has existed for nearly a decade,” U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen wrote in his ruling.

“While sympathetic to the predicament of DACA recipients and their families, this Court has expressed its concerns about the legality of the program for some time. The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches,” Hanen wrote.

With the ruling, legal analysts have predicted DACA to eventually again land on the Supreme Court’s docket.

Hanen in 2021 declared DACA illegal, ruling that the program had never been subject to public notice as required by federal rules, but allowed the program the latitude he did in Wednesday’s ruling. The Biden administration tweaked some language in the original DACA decree and tossed in a public comment allowance, but Hanen ruled that it still suffered from its original flaw of circumventing Congress and that Biden’s attempt to codify it without proper authority was illegal.

“Congress’s alleged failure to pass, or, stated differently, its decision not to enact legislation, does not empower the Executive Branch to ‘legislate’ on its own — specially when that ‘legislation’ is contrary to actual existing legislation,” Hanen wrote in his ruling Wednesday. “The Executive Branch cannot usurp the power bestowed on Congress by the Constitution — even to fill a void.”

DACA has weaved a twisted route through the courts, including rulings from both federal courts and SCOTUS that thwarted former President Donald Trump’s attempt to scuttle the program that sheltered illegals.

As part of Hanen’s previous court decision, the judge also ruled that states harmed by DACA could bring suit against the program because of financial damages. Nine states brought forwarded litigation, claiming they had been forced to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for costs associated with allowing the Dreamers to remain in the country illegally. The states that sued are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas and Mississippi.

The states had also requested that the DACA program should  be terminated over two years, but Hanen stopped short. His ruling bars the government from approving new Dreamers, but protects existing ones as litigation continues.

“The Court, as it did before, hereby stays the effective date of the vacatur as to all DACA recipients who received their initial DACA status prior to July 16, 2021,” Hanen wrote in his ruling Wednesday. “The defendants may continue to administer the program as to those individuals, and that administration may include processing and granting DACA renewal applications for those individuals.”

The judge’s ruling noted, “To be clear, neither this order nor the accompanying supplemental injunction requires the (Department of Homeland Security) or the Department of Justice to take any immigration, deportation, or criminal action against any DACA recipient, applicant, or any other individual that would otherwise not be taken.”

Hanen’s ruling was still excoriated by the Biden White House for not buying its bogus reshuffle of Obama’s original flawed usurpation of legislative authority.

“As we have long maintained, we disagree with the District Court’s conclusion that DACA is unlawful, and will continue to defend this critical policy from legal challenges,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement. “While we do so, consistent with the court’s order, DHS will continue to process renewals for current DACA recipients and DHS may continue to accept DACA applications.”

Mark Pellin is an editor at Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/sabrepaw70.

House Dems Ready To Sacrifice Hunter in Desperate Bid to Save Joe

Luis Cornelio
-
0
House Dems Ready To Sacrifice Hunter in Desperate Bid to Save Joe

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) In a strategic move to shield President Joe Biden from a looming Republican-led impeachment inquiry, House Democrats are reportedly ready to “throw Hunter under the bus.”

The plan hinges on the belief that Hunter, rather than his father, spearheaded a purported multi-million-dollar influence-peddling scheme during Biden’s tenure as vice president.

“You can’t impeach Hunter Biden,” said. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee to Politico before adding, “But he will be prosecuted.” 

Despite the mounting evidence, Raskin argued that Hunter’s possible crimes cannot be grounds for impeachment since they were not committed by Joe Biden.

Rep. Stacey E. Plaskett, D-V.I., echoed the same defense talking points. “Our job, or my job, will be to remind the American people of that over and over again — that Hunter Biden is not the administration,” she claimed.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., also chimed in, acknowledging that Hunter may have been involved in questionable activities.

“He’s a disturbed man,” Nadler said, before warning that “every president has had problematic family members.”

Adding an extra layer of complexity to the defense, Democrats are working to cast popular Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., as the driving force behind the impeachment inquiry rather than embattled California Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. 

The Democrats’ desperate plot follows McCarthy’s approval of the long-awaited impeachment inquiry into the scandal-plague president. “There’s a lot of accusations out there, and you just want the answers,” McCarthy stated after the impeachment announcement. 

The Biden White House has publicly dismissed the impeachment as a political stunt. In private, however, they have been scrambling to launch a rapid response team in anticipation of politically damning headlines as House Republicans obtain more documents to the alleged corruption.

Additionally, the White House Counsel’s Office recently penned a desperate letter to TV executives, urging them to protect Biden from unfavorable news coverage. 

1...1,7381,7391,740...3,880Page 1,739 of 3,880