There Is No Good Reason For Voters To Not Expect Results On Election Night
Keeping voters in suspense while officials take days to announce outcomes rightfully breeds distrust in the electoral process.
Kamala Harris has assembled an impressively broad coalition of weirdos and deviants since "earning" the Democratic presidential nomination. Childless cat ladies who suffer from "climate grief"? Check. Billionaire football WAGs? Check. Clinically depressed wine moms? Check. Dick Cheney, the neocon formerly known (to Democrats) as "Satan"? Checkmate. In recent days Harris appears to have locked up another niche demographic: horny dads.
The post Horny Dads for Kamala Harris appeared first on .
Jeffrey Toobin, the former CNN legal analyst who defiled himself (and his entire dumb profession) by masturbating on a Zoom call with colleagues, is officially back on the video conferencing platform.
The post ALERT: Jeffrey Toobin Back on Zoom (NSFW) appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
Jeffrey Toobin, a former CNN analyst who continues to make appearances on the liberal network, lashed out at U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Tuesday for daring to question the Biden Department of Justice's uneven application of the law.
By calling the highly esteemed constitutionalist a "disgrace," Toobin exposed himself once again to criticism over his less than sterling public record.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Fischer v. United States, which concerns the application of a federal obstruction statute against Jan. 6 protesters.
The controversial law in question, Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a felony to obstruct or impede an official proceeding and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years. The law has been weaponized by the Biden Department of Justice for use against more than 350 Jan. 6 protesters.
CBS News highlighted that the felony charge is among those former President Donald Trump faces in the case brought in Washington, D.C., by special counsel Jack Smith in 2023.
America's Future and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund noted in their amicus brief on the behalf of the petitioners that the DOJ has "indicted hundreds, including [former police officer Joseph W. Fischer], for a crime that carries a sentence twice what Congress provided for insurrections," on the basis of a "strained reading" of an obscure provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and a "fabricated January 6 narrative."
"Allowing this strained reading to stand can be expected to lead to further weaponization of the Justice Department," said the brief.
During oral arguments Tuesday, Jeffrey Green, who represented Fischer, noted that the law was created with the intention of addressing acts that impact the "integrity or availability of evidence," not acts that serve as inconveniences without affecting evidence, reported The Hill.
Conservative justices appeared interested in the selective and potential expansive application of the law, which the DOJ conceded serves as a "classic catchall."
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, "Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify? Would a heckler in today's audience qualify or at the State of the Union Address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify? And for 20 years in federal prison?"
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing on behalf of the government, suggested the statute would apply in cases of "meaningful interference" and that "minor disruption[s]," determined by partisan prosecutors, would be safe.
Gorsuch responded with a thinly veiled intimation that New York Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman's fire alarm pull and Portland radicals' sit-in would qualify as federal felonies.
Prelogar insinuated that perceived interference or obstruction regarded by partisan prosecutors as "mostly peaceful protests" are exempt.
Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch nukes Joe Biden's DOJ over January 6th sentences:\n\nGorsuch lists multiple cases of folks who "obstructed a Congressional proceeding" without receiving a 20 year sentence.\n\n1. Sit-ins at a trial (Kavanaugh protests)\n2. Pulling a fire alarm (Rep.\u2026— (@)
Justice Thomas also risked the ire of statists and other champions of government overreach, highlighting the DOJ's uneven application of the law.
"There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings," said Justice Thomas. "Has the government applied this provision to other protests in the past, and has this been the government's position throughout the lifespan of this statute?"
Prelogar refrained from answering the question directly, prompting Thomas to ask again, "Have you enforced it in that manner?"
"I can't give you an example of enforcing it in a situation where people have violently stormed a building in order to prevent an official proceeding, a specified one," answered the solicitor general.
Prickled by Justice Thomas putting questions of substance to the state, Toobin denounced the Supreme Court justice online.
The frequent CNN guest, who once had a job at the network, wrote in an X post, "In oral argument today, Justice Thomas is minimizing the severity of the 1/6 insurrection at the Capitol. Perhaps that's because his wife was part of the conspiracy. What a disgrace that he's sitting on this case."
Toobin quickly learned he was not the only critic on the platform.
Megyn Kelly responded, "Hi Toobin - fyi you waived your right to use the term 'disgraced' about other lawyers when you took your dick out of your pants and jerked off in front of your colleagues."
Hi Toobin - fyi you waived your right to use the term \u201cdisgraced\u201d about other lawyers when you took your dick out of your pants and jerked off in front of your collleagues— (@)
Mike Davis of the Article III Project, among the many who clearly appreciated Kelly's response, said, "Has anyone reported this murder yet?"
Sean Davis, CEO of the Federalist, similarly noted, "It always amuses me when a man who got caught beating his meat on a Zoom call thinks he's in a position to call other people disgraceful."
Toobin worked as a writer at the New Yorker and CNN's chief legal analyst until he exposed himself to colleagues on an October 2020 zoom call. People familiar with the matter told CNN that in a disgraceful display, Toobin began masturbating during the call.
Toobin acknowledged the incident occurred and claimed, "I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video."
CNN, which initially sidelined the flasher, apparently waited until August 2022 to confirm Toobin's departure from the network.
While various critics referenced Toobin's 2020 incidents, others went for deeper cuts, referencing his sordid extramarital affair.
The New York Post reported that the father of two had an affair with his former CNN colleague's daughter, 14 years his junior. After getting her pregnant, Toobin allegedly offered Casey Greenfield "money if she'd have an abortion."
Toobin reportedly denied paternity of the baby but was later confirmed by tests to be the father, prompting Greenfield to take Toobin to court over custody and financial support issues.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
We regret to inform you that America's journalists are in the midst of another temper tantrum. This one is in response to NBC News's decision to hire former RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel as a paid contributor. The network's own employees are in open revolt, incensed at the prospect of having to share screen time with a Republican who hasn't completely disavowed Donald Trump.
The post What in the Actual F— Is Wrong With These People? (NBC News Edition) appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
The Supreme Court hand-delivered Donald Trump a big win on Wednesday.
Legal expert Jeffrey Toobin, who is by no means a Republican, agreed the Supreme Court's decision to hear the former president's argument that presidential immunity protects him from criminal prosecution is a "gift" — whether or not the court ultimately agrees with him.
It's a "gift," Toobin explained, because the timeline almost certainly means there will not be a trial before Election Day.
— (@)
After indicting Trump last August on four charges related to election interference, special counsel Jack Smith wanted to begin trial in January. But U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan thought that timeline did not give Trump sufficient time to prepare his defense. She ultimately set a trial date for March 4 — the day before Super Tuesday.
But the trial was derailed in December when Trump appealed Chutkan's ruling that presidential immunity did not protect him in this case. That appeal immediately halted court proceedings, and they have remained stalled now for more than two months.
Smith has repeatedly urged the courts to expedite rulings on the issue, prioritizing the "public interest" and "national interest" in the case. By this Smith means that he wants a trial conclusion before Election Day, and he fears that any delay — whether or not Trump's constitutional rights are respected — increases the likelihood that there will be no jury decision before Nov. 5.
Clearly, the Supreme Court disagrees with Smith's alarm.
Not only did the Supreme Court set oral arguments for the week of April 22 — two months away — but the justices told the D.C. Circuit Court to keep its ruling in place until they issue their own ruling, which will likely not come until the end of June.
With court proceedings halted until the Supreme Court issues its decision, Trump's trial will be delayed until late summer at the earliest, which presents a significant problem for Smith: DOJ policies prohibiting election interference.
In fact, according to Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith, Smith's urgency — clearly with the election in mind — already "appears to violate" the DOJ's Justice Manual.
Specifically, Goldsmith believes Smith could be running afoul of Section 9-85.500, which states:
Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.
"If this were any other defendant than Donald Trump, the rush to trial—which cannot possibly give the Trump legal team adequate time to prepare its defense—would be deemed wildly unfair. Prosecutors and judges typically give defendants significantly more temporal leeway in trials of lesser magnitude with less severe charges," Goldsmith explained.
In reality, the Supreme Court issued a routine order.
But liberals are seething because they believe Trump is guilty — no matter the presumption of innocence — and they see any further delay in court proceedings as a delay of justice. In short, they believe the ends justify the means.
However, Goldsmith, who is no Trump supporter, strongly disagrees. Instead, he believes this approach is "uniquely harmful" to American democracy.
"The Biden Justice Department rushing to put away Biden’s political opponent is uniquely harmful," he wrote this month. "The damage to our institutions from this outcome — to belief in the legitimacy of the presidential electoral process, and to the integrity of the Justice Department and the possibility of apolitical justice — is unknowable, but it is very likely to be serious and with us for a long time."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
CNN recently fired three partisan hacks in an effort to become a semi-respectable media network. Jeffrey Toobin, the chief legal analyst best known for masturbating in front of his colleagues on a Zoom call, got the axe in early August. Brian Stelter, the chief media correspondent best known for "seriously" promoting convicted felon Michael Avenatti as a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, hosted his final show days later. John Harwood, the network's White House correspondent and enthusiastic Democratic Party apologist, announced his (unplanned) departure earlier this month.
The post Here’s What These Fired CNN Hacks Are Up to Now appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.