A very sad day for American justice
A very sad day for American justice
June 03, 2024
Dear Patriot,
As always when presented with ground shaking news, we prefer to be still and look at the situation away from the heat of the moment.
That is the case with the unprecedented, ridiculous, and maddening result in the Trump trial in New York.
We know that many of you felt the outrage and desire to DO something. That is why in 48 hours after the verdict, the Trump campaign raised over $70 million in small donations.
Not to mention the massive crowd at a UFC match going crazy when President Trump showed up live.
Americans are not buying the political persecution of Donald Trump by his evil opponent.
The media, the Democrats and the Never-Trumpers will shout “convicted felon” until their voices give out.
But, a majority of Americans can clearly see and hear only one thing: abuse of power.
Join us today to read about…
how your rights are now at great risk too.
the Supreme Court cases to keep your eye on this month.
which knuckleheads in the US Senate are finally ending bipartisanship with Democrats.
the peril of dirty voter records.
a huge study in England on the virus and the injection.
Due to the significance of today’s topic, we are making today’s complete newsletter available to all of our readers - Free and Paid.
To access every article in EVERY newsletter … Subscribe for. only $5 / month
1- We will be talking and reading about the Trump trials for years to come. In the meantime, John Droz sums up everything.
John Droz at Critical Thinking on Substack
Your rights as an American citizen are directly at stake here
QUOTE: Whether or not you agree or disagree with the NY v Trump verdict, and whether or not you are a Republican or Democrat, the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION is: did this defendant get a fair trial that every American citizen is legally entitled to?
I’m not an attorney, but any citizen can — and should — do some critical thinking about situations that could have a major effect on our country and our freedoms.
Let’s start with the claimed issue: Donald Trump was essentially charged with falsifying business records of paying off a woman, to enhance his 2016 election chances.
When answering the fair trial question consider the following: (Go to link above for all 12 questions)
1 - Even if Trump did do what he was charged, isn’t that a misdemeanor offense? Yes: see New York’s election law 17-152. Please read it, as it is only two sentences. But wait — this underlying potential misdemeanor expired years ago, due to the statute of limitations!
2 - Then how come Trump was charged with felonies? Sleight of hand. Alvin Bragg, the prosecuting attorney, chose to categorize this misdemeanor as a felony (i.e., more serious). “The prosecutors … argument is that the [misdemeanor election] crime was committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election.” Got that? (See here.) Is this fair treatment of an American citizen?
3 - How can an expired, unproven misdemeanor, be resurrected as a more serious offense? More sleight of hand + a sympathetic Judge. Is that fair to an American citizen?
The Bottom Line
What is on full display here is the alternate anti-American reality created when a Prosecutor and Judge are in collusion to inflict political retribution on a defendant, while neither is tethered to the Law, Legal precedent, of Judeo-Christian moral standards.
2- Our exquisite system of government that has endured 248 years depends on checks and balances. The last best balance we have now is the Supreme Court. Pray for all Justices, they are under withering attacks by the left. The decisions they make this month could help many J6 political prisoners.
A Huge Number of Biden’s Jan 6 Prosecutions Could Fall Apart THIS MONTH, Here’s Why.
QUOTE: The United States Supreme Court is set to decide Fisher v. United States, a case in which January 6 Capitol riot defendant Joseph W. Fisher is challenging a federal felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding. Justices heard oral arguments in the case in mid-April, and are likely to rule by the end of June.
Joe Biden‘s Department of Justice (DOJ) has used the felony charge against over 300 individuals who allegedly participated in the 2021 riot in Washington, D.C. Additionally, the obstruction charge forms the core of DOJ special counsel Jack Smith‘s January 6 prosecution against former President Donald Trump.
Fisher and his attorneys contend the obstruction felony — a provision enacted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal — represents an abusive application of what was supposed to be a statute addressing document destruction in the course of committing a financial crime. U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols ruled in Fisher’s favor in March 2022, dismissing the obstruction charge against three of the January 6 defendants. But the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Nichols’s ruling in a 2-1 decision in April 2023 — setting up the showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could have far-reaching implications beyond the over 300 individuals charged under Biden’s DOJ’s use of the enhanced obstruction provision.
If the Justices rule against using Sarbanes-Oxley in the Jan 6 prosecutions, it would also invalidate two of the four felony charges brought by DOJ special counsel Jack Smith in the Washington, D.C.-based prosecution of former President Trump. Smith alleges the former President illegally attempted to interfere in the 2020 presidential election and overturn its results.
In addition to the potential impact of Fisher v. United States, the Supreme Court also heard a ‘presidential immunity’ challenge brought by Trump against Smith‘s prosecution in April. Trump and his defense attorneys contend that he is immune from prosecution as his actions challenging the 2020 election results were committed in his official capacity as President of the United States. If the Court rules in favor of broad legal protections for current and former U.S. presidents, it could result in most of the state and federal charges against him — in at least three current prosecutions — being dismissed.
3- If you happen to have a Republican Senator representing you in Washington DC, you might rattle their cages and demand that they join Senator Mike Lee. This is a check and balance that the Republicans in the House and the Senate have not used well.
Ten GOP Senators, Led By Mike Lee: “We are no longer cooperating with any Democrat legislative priorities or nominations”
QUOTE: The horrific assault on our Republic that resulted in 34 (!!) felony convictions of former president Donald Trump has reverberated across the nation. The blight on our nation caused by every Democrat who has had a hand in the banana republic disgrace of an American president being paraded around in a clown court, a Soviet-style show trial, makes a mockery of the very foundations of this (once?) great country.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is spear-heading a campaign among U.S. senators to stop cooperating with the corrupt Biden administration on legislative matters that do not directly affect the American people.
"Strongly worded statements are not enough.Those who turned our judicial system into a political cudgel must be held accountable.We are no longer cooperating with any Democrat legislative priorities or nominations, and we invite all concerned Senators to join our stand."
Initially, only eight senators, including Lee, had signed on. The others are: J.D. Vance (Ohio), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), Eric Schmitt (Mo.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Roger Marshall (Kan.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.). Josh Hawley (MO) and Ron Johnson (WI) have since joined.
Lee and the other signatories have invited other Senators to sign-on.
Where are the other Senators? Everyone knows what happened, how wrong it was and is, and there needs to be more action to hinder everything this grossly corrupt, horrifically unAmerican administration is doing.
4- Judicial Watch is a true warrior in forcing states to clean up voter rolls. They are suing numerous California counties for not keeping up with this housekeeping.
Clean Voter Rolls Matter
QUOTE: Dirty voter rolls make for dirty elections. Sloppy registration and accountability procedures and/or willful blindness to loaded-up voter rolls are key ingredients for mischief, manipulation, and other voting “irregularities.”
Bloated, inaccurate voter registrations can create the conditions that undermine public confidence in the already badly damaged reputations of officials and agencies administering our elections. The federal voting law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), acknowledges that–and that’s why Section 8 of that law requires the states to make “a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.”
Mostly, these ineligible voting registrations are for people that have died or changed residence. The law requires registrations to be cancelled when voters fail to respond to address confirmation notices and then fail to vote in the next two general federal elections. In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld such removals.
Judicial Watch has been successful in the removal of up to four million ineligible voters from voter rolls in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Colorado, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, DC, and elsewhere.
In February 2023, Los Angeles County (alone) confirmed removal of 1,207,613 ineligible voters from its rolls since the year before, under the terms of a settlement agreement in a federal lawsuit Judicial Watch filed in 2017.
Judicial Watch now continues to press California counties to obey the law and clean up its voter rolls by filing a lawsuit (Judicial Watch Inc. and the Libertarian Party of CA v. Shirley Weber et al. (No. 2:24-cv-3750).
In correspondence with Judicial Watch, the State of California: “admit[ted] that 21 California counties removed five or fewer registrations pursuant to [the NVRA] … for failing to respond to a Confirmation Notice and then failing to vote in two general federal elections … from November 2020 to November 2022. Sixteen of the 21 counties removed zero such registrations during this period. The 21 counties are: Alameda (1 such removal), Alpine (0), Calaveras (0), Imperial (0), Lake (1), Modoc (0), Placer (0), Plumas (0), San Benito (0), San Bernardino (0), San Luis Obispo (5), San Mateo (0), Santa Barbara (0), Santa Cruz (0), Shasta (0), Siskiyou (2), Solano (0), Stanislaus (0), Trinity (0), Ventura (0), and Yolo (2).”
Together, these 21 counties reported a combined total of 11 removals under Section 8(d)(1)(B) during this two-year reporting period.
The complaint notes that “these 21 counties contain about 22% of the population of California.” The lawsuit alleges that, in Judicial Watch’s experience “based on years of enforcing the NVRA,” there “is no possible way any county” with such “absurdly small” removal numbers can be complying with the NVRA’s requirement “to cancel the registrations of voters who have become ineligible because of a change of residence.” The complaint points out that about 11.6% of California residents move each year, and that in the last year for which data are available (2022) “about 818,000 California residents moved out of state.”
Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of its work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls across the country, among other achievements. Clean voter rolls do not guarantee fair elections–but they do increase their likelihood and encourage public confidence.
5- A massive study by Oxford University of English children showed that heart issues arise directly from the injections not from the virus.
Myocarditis and Pericarditis Only Appear After COVID Vaccination
QUOTE: Myocarditis and pericarditis only occur after vaccination and not after COVID-19 infection, according to a recent preprint led by researchers at Oxford University, which compared health outcomes among COVID-vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
“Whilst rare, all myocarditis and pericarditis events during the study period occurred in vaccinated individuals,” the authors wrote. There were no deaths from myocarditis or pericarditis.
The study evaluated over 1 million English children aged 5 to 11 and adolescents aged 12 to 15. Vaccinated minors were compared to an equal number of unvaccinated, and children who took one dose were also compared to those who took two doses.
Despite having higher chances of heart inflammation, vaccinated adolescents had significantly lower chances of testing positive for COVID-19 and needing COVID-related hospitalization and critical care compared to their unvaccinated counterparts. Vaccinated children, however, were not substantially different from unvaccinated children in terms of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization.
Additionally, “COVID-19-related hospitalisation, and critical care attendance were rare in both adolescents and children and there were no COVID-19 related deaths,” the authors observed.
Some researchers have reasoned that children are better protected because, compared to adults, they have a faster-responding innate immune system, often referred to as the first line of defense. This enables them to mount a robust defense against COVID-19 infections more quickly.
PRAY for divine intervention in all matters. PRAY for the many brave warriors.
SHARE the truth.
Hold Fast,
Defending The Republic
This will be permanently available for all at Defending The Republic.
