This is the full "Trump Accountability Project" enemies list before it was hidden & before the judges & donors tabs were removed. I took screen shots of every page before that happened. The list of administration officials is 1202 long so I overlapped the pics to get them all. /0
Overview Page:
/1
Campaign Staff:
/2
Administration Members:
/3
Administration Members:
/4
Administration Members:
/5
Administration Members:
/6
Administration Members:
/7
Administration Members:
/8
Administration Members:
/9
Administration Members:
/10
Administration Members:
/11
Administration Members:
/12
Administration Members:
/13
Administration Members:
/14
Administration Members:
/15
Administration Members:
/16
Administration Members:
/17
Administration Members:
/18
Administration Members:
/19
Administration Members:
/20
Administration Members:
/21
Administration Members:
/22
Administration Members:
/23
Administration Members:
/24
Administration Members:
/25
Administration Members:
/26
Administration Members:
/27
Administration Members:
/28
Administration Members:
/29
Administration Members:
/30
Administration Members:
/31
Administration Members:
/32
Administration Members:
/33
Administration Members:
/34
"Appointees" - Sitting Federal Judges:
/35
"Appointees" - Sitting Federal Judges:
/36
Donors:
/37
Law firms:
/38
"Endorsers" - otherwise known as a sitting US Senator
/39
Denouncer
/40
You may have noticed that some of the "Administration Members" are Assistants and Stenographers.
What the Fuck is wrong with you, you totalitarian goons? /41
These are the 3 totalitarian goons who drew up and sponsored this "enemies list." 👇Despicable.
/42
This link will take you to the Wayback machine capture (web archive) of the website and list also. web.archive.org/web/2020110621…
The term limits are DOA w/o a Constitutional amendment. It’s a closer question as to whether the Congress can mandate ethics rules for the SCOTUS - they can impeach them after all - but I think the better answer is that that’s unconstitutional too. And clearly the immunity question has already been decided as a matter of constitutional interpretation.
Biden says in his op-ed that he thinks a constitutional amendment is required for the immunity issue. He doesn’t actually say whether he thinks the other two issues require constitutional amendments or should be tried with merely legislation.
In my view all 3 would require constitutional amendments; all 3 amendments are bad ideas; and all 3 amendments are unlikely to succeed now, or possibly ever.
Legislation instead on these issues would be unconstitutional, in my opinion.
The real danger here is in Biden trashing the Court & the Justices. His op-ed is repulsive & mendacious.
Protecting the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental American value. We TEACH it to foreign nations as a core principle for them to adopt in democratic governance.
For our leaders & one of the major parties to jettison that principle for political expediency is revolting. It’s also dangerous. It literally undermines the fabric of our democracy.
Quotes from Cheatle’s opening statement later today:
“As the director of the United States Secret Service, I take full responsibility for any security lapse.”
No, you won’t. You would have resigned already if you were doing g that.
“We will cooperate with the pending external review and the DHS Office of the Inspector General.”
Big of you to say so since you don’t fucking have a choice about it.
This is who runs the country now. Unelected, Peter-principle bureaucrats who are incompetent at their jobs, talk in official nonsense, never take true responsibility, & cling to power no matter what.
1. Most people only have empathy for people they actually know.
2. Most people can not understand things they have not personally experienced.
3. These two facts are why the world’s religions TEACH the Golden Rule.
4. Because the Golden Rule is not natural to most people. To the contrary, most people are fine with bad things happening to people they don’t know.
5. Especially if they think the people it’s happening to are “bad people.”
6. They can’t & don’t empathize with other people based just on those people’s humanity.
7. So Leftists who engage in cancel culture are never going to learn not to do that unless they or someone they know/care about gets hurt by it, i.e., both sides getting their ox gored.
I’m late to the SCOTUS party today because we are moving today!
But I wanted to let you guys know that the decision today about the SEC is a huge win for liberty lovers. The case is Jarkesy.
The Court ruled the govt can’t impose fines on people for alleged fraud w/o a jury.
This decision is constitutional & therefore should directly affect all the other administrative agencies that have civil fraud penalty schemes too, like HUD, HHS & a bunch of others.
This has been one of the most common constitutional violations perpetrated by the federal govt.
As a young lawyer I was astonished these schemes were considered legal. It seemed obvious to me that they were unconstitutional.
The first one I worked on I was horrified because the SEC lawyers were so tyrannical- precisely because there was no check on them, judge or jury.
1st Amendment Praetorian (1AP) is/was a nonprofit organization that I represented (pro bono) prior to Jan6 & before the congressional J6 Committee. They provided security for speakers at various events before & after the 2020 election.
If you followed me then, you will know that I lodged formal written objections on behalf of 1AP to the J6 Committee because the Committee was trying to violate 1AP’s 1st Amendment right to freedom of association by demanding information & testimonies from this nonprofit.
I’ve now listened to Mark Levin’s argument about SCOTUS taking DJT’s case by writ. I agree it’s at least possible, tho as Mark agrees, rare. I said this in my Daily Wire interview this morning.
The statute he cites 28 USC 1651 is right but he’s not right that it can be done now.
SCOTUS’ writ power is “in aid of” its appellate jurisdiction. So, 1. there must be a federal issue in the case, which I think there is.
But 2. there must also be a judgment that the writ is seeking review from.
I see only 2 ways that there could be such a judgment:
1. A judgment in the criminal case - which only comes once the sentence is rendered - &/or the failure of Merchan or other judges to stay any sentence; &