We’ve seen the lawfare against Trump meant to destroy both his candidacy and himself. We’ve seen the party claiming “Democracy is on the ballot” attempt to wipe Donald Trump’s name off that same ballot. We’ve watched as he was convicted of 36 felonies for doing exactly what Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid a mere $8,000 fine for. We watched as Matthew Colangelo resigned from the Biden DOJ so he could prosecute Donald Trump in New York, while the Biden Administration claimed with a straight face that they were not involved in any way.

We have watched two assassination attempts, one where bullets flew and another where they were waiting. The second attempt was prompted by rhetoric from the Democrats that Trump was a fascist and a danger to Democracy. Rhetoric that the Democrats have only ratcheted up since that attempt.

We have watched as the Democrats have installed a different Presidential Nominee without a primary for voters to select their candidate. While this is pretty uncharted territory, I do not believe history will look back favorably on this, and future precedent will likely be written by the Supreme Court in opposition to it.

This is an election unlike any other, and it is indeed consequential.

Trump has courted Libertarians specifically by coming to their convention where he promised to free Ross Ulbricht, protect Bitcoin and place a Libertarian in his cabinet. These are definitely some wins. However there are even bigger wins that Trump did not announce at the Libertarian convention.

One common criticism that Libertarians have of Republicans is that they never actually cut spending or eliminate wasteful departments. This has been true up until now. Trump is tapping Elon Musk to launch a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to address this very thing. Who better than Elon Musk to drastically reduce Federal agencies like he did to the headcount at Twitter? OK OK fine, yes Ron Paul, you got me there.

It’s a good thing Elon Musk agrees with you.

Trump has assembled the likes of Vivek Ramaswamy, Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr, Elon Musk, and yes, Ron Paul now too. It is a team of great people all tapped for specific strengths to be used in Trump’s second cabinet which is shaping up a whole lot better than his first one.

However the most consequential thing may come after the next 4 years are over. If Trump wins this election, then all the establishment Republicans and neocon warmongers who have aligned themselves with the Democrats will be stuck there. They will have no credibility after such a loss. If Trump loses however, they will have credibility to ooze their way back in.

A Trump win creates a vacuum in 4 years when Trump’s 2nd term is over. It’s a vacuum that beaten neocons would not be able to recapture and fill. The Ron Paul conservatives, the Vivek Ramaswamys and JD Vances and those who love liberty should position themselves to fill that vacuum.

This is a consequential election, and getting Trump over the finish line sets us up for even bigger wins in the long term. These are wins we can actually pat ourselves on the back for and take credit for. We’re responsible for freeing Ross. We’re responsible for Republicans cutting spending. Let’s take those wins and own them.

The post The Libertarian Moment Has Arrived—And It’s Riding on Trump’s 2024 Win appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

 Colorado’s bogus legal theory failed, so New York invents a new crime.

Initially, Colorado and Maine attempted to deny Trump ballot access by asserting that he was an ineligible presidential candidate since he had violated the insurrectionist clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down their claims, empathically holding state power does not extend to federal officials and candidates “Because federal officers ‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not a portion, of the people.’”

Subsequently, New York tried a different approach: indictment. It twisted its legal system to give voters nationwide the appearance of providing a fair trial while it schemed to deprive Trump of his constitutional rights. New York’s goal was to tarnish Trump’s reputation, to tilt the election to the blue-state candidate.

It has been less than four months since the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down Colorado’s attempt to remove President Trump from the ballot. During that time, New York invented a new crime to bring against Trump. It was a combination of a misdemeanor business records violation for which the statute of limitation had run and an alleged crime of miscategorizing an expense for a non-disclosure agreement as a legal expense. This unprecedented move was clearly aimed at undermining his candidacy and influencing the election outcome.

New York then staged a trial that transformed a misdemeanor into a felony and convicted Trump of the invented crime. The New York trial court record is replete with examples of how the state, acting through a biased and conflict-ridden judge and a prosecutor campaigning to “Get Trump,” flagrantly violated the former President’s constitutional right to due process to keep him from campaigning in the federal election for President of the U.S.

At trial, New York failed to inform Trump of the alleged crime, denied him the right to put on expert witnesses on election law, and failed to require the jury to unanimously find him guilty of a specific crime as mandated by the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment. New York’s injustice is further compounded by the judge’s “Gag Order” that prevents the former President from freely speaking about the case during the presidential campaign. The Gag Order was continued even after the jury was dismissed, clearly an effort to restrict Trump’s campaign.

The 2024 election is on November 5^th.

With the 2024 election just around the corner, the urgency of the situation cannot be overstated. New York’s threat to our federal election can only be resolved by one or more red states petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction over issues involving conflicts between states. If the U.S. Supreme Court does not immediately address New York’s election interference, it could permanently disrupt a “uniquely important national interest” by allowing voters in different states to believe Trump is a criminal and should not hold office.

Since the votes cast in each state are affected by the votes cast in all states, “An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times.”

This disruption could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result, leading to a chaotic and uncertain future. As the Supreme Court noted in the Colorado case,  “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we [United States] endure such chaos.” The potential consequences of inaction are too grave to ignore.

The red States have a direct path to the U.S. Supreme Court to block New York’s election interference.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution reserves a special place in the nation’s operation for states to protect the Republic from the unconstitutional election interference of states seeking to subvert the integrity of national elections. The Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, plays the essential role in upholding this principle. The relevant part of Article III, sec 2, clause 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

This right is so significant to the functioning of the Union that Congress codified and expanded it at 28 U.S.C. sec. 1251(a) to ensure this protection is straightforward and can be immediately exercised by states.

28 U.S.C. 1251(a) reads:

• The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies between two or more states. [emphasis added]

Moreover, New York’s election interference violates the rights of the voters of all states to have a fair election by denying a presidential candidate the Privileges and Immunities protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court noted:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As the guardians of national elections, the red states have a crucial role to play. They can directly challenge the state of New York’s unconstitutional conduct in the U.S. Supreme Court, thereby upholding our Republic’s integrity and all citizens’ rights.

The Court’s process for handling cases under original review.

While section 1251(a) states that the ‘Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction, the Court views such power as discretionary. Therefore, the red states must file a ‘motion for leave to file a bill of complaint,’ a formal request for permission to present a legal case. The justices will then decide whether to accept or reject the complaint based on the merits of the case and the potential impact on the nation’s electoral process.

Historically, these state vs. state cases involved water rights, boundary disputes, and commercial fishing. The Court has rejected cases involving goods made by convicts, one state prohibiting state employee travel to another state, and inheritance taxes imposed on residents of other states. The last major state vs. state case was Florida vs. Georgia (2021): the Court rejected Florida’s claim that Georgia consumed more than its fair share of water since Florida did not prove by clear and convincing evidence a severe injury caused by Georgia.

Fortunately, an extensive trial court record for the red states makes the case ready for Supreme Court review.

By having original jurisdiction, many of these state vs. state cases arrive at the Supreme Court without the benefit of a lower court decision setting forth the facts and law relied upon by the parties. As a result, the Supreme Court must appoint a Special Master who gathers evidence, takes sworn testimony, and rules on the evidence. This process can take years for the Special Master to complete his report. The Special Master submits a report to the Supreme Court in a manner similar to an appellate court decision. The Court decides to accept or reject the Master’s report.

In the case of the Red States vs. New York, there is no need for a Special Master since a comprehensive trial record is available to the Court. Moreover, the questions before the Court are all matters of law, not fact, since all the facts are contained in the trial court record. From that record, the Supreme Court can determine if the state of New York unconstitutionally used its legal system in a manner that interfered with the elections in other states.

While the Supreme Court has adjudicated presidential election controversies, e.g., Bush v. Gore, it involved private parties. However, the Court has never ruled on a controversy in which a group of states alleged another state interfered with a national election. Red States vs. New York is an opportunity for the Court to set limits on election interference by states since these types of state actions are capable of repetition.

Post Script

While state vs. state election interference claims rest within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, New York and the actions of other blue states, e.g., Colorado and Maine, to keep Trump off the ballot may also violate numerous federal civil rights statutes, giving former President Trump standing to sue the individuals in those states, acting under color of law, who conspired to keep him off the ballot and/or interfere with the election. These statutes are 42 U.S.C. 1983 (deprivation of civil rights, privileges, and immunities), 42 U.S.C. 1985 (conspiracy to prevent Trump from holding office, obstructing justice, and depriving him of his privileges and immunities), and 42 U.S.C. 1986 (allows Trump to sue those who had the power to prevent violations of his civil rights but were negligent in not preventing them, i.e., the Governor of New York. The Civil Rights statutes may also apply to individuals such as the fifty-one intelligence officials who knew the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic but claimed it to be Russian disinformation to smear Trump and elect Biden. Also, under 42 U.S.C. 1986, the FBI agents may be sued for their negligence in failing to stop the false statements by the fifty-one intelligence officials that interfered with the 2020 election.

William L. Kovacs, author of Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic. Received 5 Stars from Readers’ Favorite. His previous book Reform the Kakistocracy received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chief counsel to a congressional committee. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post Red States Can Sue NY for Election Interference in SCOTUS appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Later members to join The Syndicate include prosecutors in DC, Florida, New York, and Georgia who indicted the former president in the middle of the presidential election season. They seek jail, fines, and the destruction of Trump and his businesses.  Now, the prosecutors seek immediate trials based on the urgency of the situation, which is the need to put the former president in jail before the November election. This type of abuse of power should be terrifying to Americans.

More recently, two events pushed speculation of a coup into an evidence-based theory of a coup d’état. Colorado and Maine joined The Syndicate by removing the former president from their state presidential ballots. Eleven more states have cases pending to remove Trump from their ballots. The justification for this blitzkrieg of lawsuits is “apparently” a “law review” that asserts Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment (“Section 3”), a Civil War Amendment, forbids President Trump from ever again holding office since he somehow participated in an undefined, not judicially established, insurrection.

The second event involves the Georgia and New York prosecutors spending hours at the White House on litigation strategy and the Georgia prosecutors getting legal counseling from the Monkey Trial Committee. These meetings are the essence of coordination.

Since Sinclair Lewis wrote “It Can’t Happen Here” in 1935, many authors have raised the question: Is Democracy so fragile that the U.S. could become a dystopian nation? So far, the writers have been wrong. They have been right. However, Democracy is fragile. Unfortunately, Democracy may be so fragile the U.S. may be in the process of becoming the dystopian place writers fictionalize.

But for the political advantage to the Democrats, the events of January 6^th would have been defined as a riot, “a violent disturbance of the peace by a group of people.” Unfortunately, The Syndicate, by deeming Trump’s action an insurrection, positions them to eliminate Trump and take control of the government. As part of its fantastic narrative, the federal government, which has a $944 billion annual military machine and describes its military as a fearsome and gargantuan beast, claims it was in existential fear of destruction by “several rioters having firearms and dozens more wielded knives, bats and other real makeshift weapons.” The Syndicate’s reaction to the January 6^th riot is best characterized by the hilarious movie “The Mouse that Roared.”

The January 6^th crowd so “paralyzed” the then Speaker of the House, the D.C. mayor, and the Capitol Police that they could not respond to President Trump’s offer to send in the National Guard. These political elites seemed confident the FBI infiltrators planted in the crowd to incite legal demonstrators to break the law would prove the truth of their insurrection narrative. Two thousand demonstrators entered the Capitol, and 1100 were arrested. A nationwide manhunt continues for many others. Many were sent to D.C. Gitmo without the right to counsel or a speedy trial. The DOJ/FBI’s dragnet is its largest in U.S. history.

If January 6^th turns out to be a riot and not an insurrection, the systematic actions by The Syndicate would be what academics define as a self-coup d’état. It is a coup in which the nation’s power structure comes to power legally but seeks to stay in power through illegal means. Did The Syndicate label January 6^th an insurrection as an excuse to prosecute Trump supporters and organize the entire political machinery of the nation to “Get Trump” and remain in power?

The relevant parts of the 14^th Amendment read:

Section 3. No person shall…hold any office…under the United States or any state, who having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution… [if such person] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The proponents for disqualifying Trump under Section 3 claim:

• Section 3 is not limited to the Civil War.
• It operates independently of criminal proceedings or an impeachment.
• It is self-executing by any state election official.
• It is an immediate disqualification from office.
• “…public officials don’t need special permission from lawmakers to disqualify Trump from the ballot: if they believe their argument valid, they can disqualify potential candidates on their own” and any ballot within their jurisdiction.
• Finally, “[T]he election officials are legally required to do so.”

Further, they argue to the extent Section 3 conflicts with prior constitutional protections, it repeals, supersedes, or satisfies them, including the constitutional protections against ex post facto laws and Trump’s Due Process and free speech rights. The authors believe eliminating all these constitutional rights can be implemented without involving Congress, the states, the process for amending the Constitution, or the need for judicial determinations of fact and law. The authors pronounce election officials are empowered to disqualify Trump. According to the National Council of State Legislators, there are more than 10,000 election administration jurisdictions in the U.S. There are likely thousands of election officials. Can each disqualify President Trump because they believe he is an insurrectionist?

The flaws in the proponents’ arguments are so vast as to establish bad faith. First, the proponents of “Get Trump” ignore section 5 altogether, i.e., that Congress has the power to enforce section 3 by legislation, and it has not. Moreover, the term “insurrection” is not defined in the 14^th Amendment or anywhere in our Constitution or laws; as such, the 14th Amendment cannot be applied since it would be unconstitutionally vague and a denial of due process. The two federal cases addressing Section 3 rejected its use to disqualify government officials from holding office. In In re Griffin (1869), Justice Chase rejected the application of Section 3 as it would cause legal chaos. Most importantly, the application of Section 3, as claimed, denies defendants due process and several other constitutional guarantees. In U.S. v. Powell (1871), the court ruled there must be findings of fact before rendering any decision.

The foundation of a self- coup d’état theory rests on a set of actions to deny the American people the right to vote for the candidate of their choice:

1. Before Trump became president, there were systematic actions by The Syndicate to circulate false information to make the public believe the Russians compromised him.
2. The lies about Trump led to two impeachments in the House. While the Senate acquitted Trump, the actions of The Syndicate had the intended negative impact on the Trump presidency.
3. As far back as 2019, The Syndicate protected Biden by denying the evidence that Hunter’s “Laptop from Hell” was real. They also hid that there were 5400 Biden emails in which Joe Biden used the pseudonyms “Robert L. Peters” and “JRB Ware” to conceal the Biden money laundering activities with Ukraine, Russia, and Romania.
4. The Syndicate, in violation of federal law, tipped off Hunter Biden that his storage units were to be raided, thereby allowing Hunter to remove all incriminating evidence.
5. The circulation of false information about Trump by The Syndicate continued while he was in office, as evidenced by the Durham and Horowitz Reports.
6. As to the January 6^th riots, The Syndicate still refuses to release the information requested by the Republicans in Congress.
7. The Monkey Trial committee formed by the House Democrats prohibited Republicans from naming their members to the Committee, thereby preventing the cross-examination of witnesses and a fair hearing on the day’s events.
8. After President Trump left office, The Syndicate waited until the 2024 primary election season started to indict him in four separate jurisdictions. The Syndicate, using public resources, is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent Trump from winning the presidency. There is no record of such a massive use of public resources to prosecute one political opponent. Even the international Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals focused the government’s prosecution in one court.
9. All the prosecution trials are scheduled during campaign season to ensure Trump cannot campaign against Biden. The Syndicate appears to be interfering with the 2024 election under the pretense of saving the Constitution by disqualifying Trump from the presidential ballots in states controlled by Democrats.
10. The Syndicate seeks to disqualify Trump from holding office by advocating that any judge or election official in any state can disqualify the former president from office.
11. The meetings between the prosecutors, the White House, and the January 6^th committee reveal the Syndicate’s coordination.
12. Finally, the DOJ and FBI refuse to provide Congress with the information requested to establish a continuing coverup by the federal government.

One hundred thirty-six federal emergency laws in the U.S. grant the Executive the power to be a dictator at the time of his choosing. These emergency powers were used during COVID. These emergency laws can be used again for countless purposes. Since Americans can vote for Congress every two years, a coup d’état is highly unlikely. Americans would be fools, however, to believe a coup d’état can’t happen here. It may be happening.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

Keyword: Coup d’état

Tags:

Meta description:

The post Is It Happening Now, A Government Coordinated Coup d’état? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Baby Boomers seem to enjoy borrowing money. At some point, however, someone confronted with having to pay off the debt will object since those future generations will not have had any say in the creation of the debt. What does the nation do when it reaches that point?

The last three presidents of the U.S. (George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump) have imposed  $22 trillion in additional National Debt out of a total of $29 trillion of debt. These three presidents are responsible for 76% of the nation’s entire National Debt from the founding of the Republic. Each person’s share of just the National Debt is $85,423 and for every household, it is $221,321. In his first year in office, President Biden (FY 2021) has increased the National Debt by $1.5 trillion and is now proposing many trillions more in new social programs.

At what point does this massive national debt become so burdensome that it is an unjust law on the citizens of the U.S. by placing them in servitude to the federal government?

There is a passage in Martin Luther King, Jr’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, on unjust laws that should be mandatory reading for every lawmaker. It extends far beyond the heinous evils and unjust nature of racial discrimination. It is a timeless analysis of the fundamental attributes needed in structuring “just laws” in a democracy.

King is asked: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” He replied, “…there are two types of laws: there are just laws and there are unjust laws.” He explained the moral basis for the distinction. But it is his two examples of the differences that provide insight into structuring “just laws” in a democracy.

To Dr. King, an unjust law is a law the majority imposes on a minority but not on itself. A just law is one that applies to all equally.

Secondly, an unjust law is one inflicted upon a group that had no part in its passing; e.g., the group was deprived of the right to vote.

While these principles apply to racial discrimination, they can also be applied to the rapidly increasing, massive national debt that is being imposed on future generations who have not been given a “say” or “vote” in the process. Future generations are being told, “pay our bills.”

Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the National Debt. Actually, Republicans, through the Trump presidency, for all their righteous calls for fiscal restraint, are responsible for about 60% of the National Debt. Biden is quickly moving the split into a 50-50 tie. Both parties relish spending our money and using budget gimmicks to impose more debt on us while lying to our faces. For example, Congress and past administrations lie about the increasing debt by keeping the cost of continuing wars off the books or passing Continuing Resolutions.

It is highly unlikely that present politicians and voters will pay off this debt in their lifetimes. This means we citizens are living on the future productivity of those who have no ability to participate in creating the debt.

Other than the writings of Dr. King and a few leaders of peaceful resistance movements, the discussion of “unjust laws” is left for philosophers and ethicists. The immenseness of the national debt and its impact on future generations requires discussion today—especially by federal candidates.

The national debt could become so burdensome to future generations that it undermines democracy. We can no longer separate questions of morality from the consequences of legislative actions like thoughtless increases in the debt ceiling and new open-ended programs.

We can easily claim there is nothing we can do—our elected leaders control the budget, spending, and continuing increases in the debt ceiling. Moreover, those borrowed funds go to “good causes” supporters claim must be addressed, arguing it would be immoral not to take care of the least among us.

If the state imposed the full amount of taxes on citizens needed to pay for all the programs it provides, there would be a tax revolt against “unjust taxes.” Tax revolts have happened since the government first imposed taxes on people. But the accumulation of massive debt is different from imposing taxes on people. Accumulating and deferring the payment of debt allows the state to avoid taxing voters by shifting the cost of our wants to future generations.

Each dollar expended by us today without earning that dollar is a dollar our posterity will have to repay for us. Is there a point at which the debt imposed on future generations is so massive that it converts the social obligation of paying reasonable taxes into involuntary servitude to the government?

Citizens in a democracy are responsible for the actions of the state. Those taking state action are our servants. We have the ability through our vote to control them.  As we continue to amass debt, we are telling future generations they “have no rights.” This is the essence of an “unjust law.” Worse than being a Kakistocracy, we are becoming an unjust country that is willing to inflict servitude upon future generations so that we can avoid living within our means.

The post $30 Trillion National Debt is an Unjust Law to Our Children appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Mary Margaret Olohan on November 11, 2020

• Many media pundits and Democrats have said they are making lists of President Donald Trump’s “sycophants” or supporters following the 2020 presidential election.
• “Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into ‘polite’ society,’” warned Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin. “We have a list.”
• Journalist Glen Greenwald predicted before the election that rather than settle the nation’s divisiveness, a Biden presidency would spur the media to target Trump supporters, warning: “They’re going to continue to say, not maybe Trump, at least his movement, still pose this existential threat.”

Several media figures and Democrats have called for lists to be made of President Donald Trump’s “sycophants” or supporters following the presidential election, suggesting that these lists will be used in the future to hold the president’s supporters accountable.

“Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future,” Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Cortez asked Friday, the day before media outlets called the presidential race for Biden. “I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future.”

Ocasio-Cortez is not the only one asking for evidence of Trump supporter’s “complicity.” CNN’s Jake Tapper suggested that Trump and his followers should be careful of behaving in a way that might impact their future employment.

“I truly sympathize with those dealing with losing — it’s not easy — but at a certain point one has to think not only about what’s best for the nation (peaceful transfer of power) but how any future employers might see your character defined during adversity,” Tapper said.

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin also warned that Republicans “now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into ‘polite’ society.”

Greenwald’s predictions may have been fulfilled in part. Days after Election Day, former Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan highlighted the start of a “Trump Accountability Project” intended to “make sure anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America is held responsible for what they did.”

Sevugan, who also served as national press secretary for the Democratic National Committee and as deputy campaign manager for former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, tweeted Friday that White House staff had begun looking for jobs, adding, “Employers considering them should know there are consequences for hiring anyone who helped Trump attack American values. Find out how at the Trump Accountability Project.”

“We must never forget those who furthered the Trump agenda,” the Trump Accountability Project website says. “We should welcome in our fellow Americans with whom we differ politically. But those who took a paycheck from the Trump Administration should not profit from their efforts to tear our democracy apart.”

The progressive Lincoln Project has repeatedly used it’s Twitter platform to target those affiliated with President Trump. On Tuesday, after multiple inquiries from the Daily Caller News Foundation, a Twitter spokesman told the DCNF that the Lincoln Project’s Twitter account would be locked until it deleted a tweet doxxing two Trump lawyers.

“Here are two attorneys attempting to help Trump overturn the will of the Pennsylvanian people,” the Lincoln Project tweeted with a picture of attorneys Carolyn McGee and Ronald Hicks. The tweet, which included the attorneys’ phone numbers and emails, added, “Make them famous,” with a skull and crossbones emoji.

Conservative figures on social media reacted strongly to the suggestion of making lists.

“While you’re a terrible person for doing this, Democrats putting Trump supporters and Republicans on lists is a great issue for us to campaign on in Georgia, so thanks,” NRSC Senior Advisor Matt Whitlock told Sevugan Friday in a tweet regarding the Trump Accountability Project. “Keep up the great work.”

“The list making at @CNN has begun,” warned radio host Chris Stigall in a Tuesday tweet above a screenshot of CNN. The photograph shows a long list of “GOP Senators Who Haven’t Congratulated Biden” above the caption, “Trump’s Defiance Fueled By Enablers Like Barr, McConnell, Fox.”

“To some insiders, the attacks have emboldened their campaign to find examples of ballot and voting fraud,” wrote the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard. “Still, it is true that for many inside the administration, finding a job will be difficult, no matter what. There are about 4,000 administration-related jobs, and those will go to Biden. While there are a few new Republican congressional members, it isn’t enough to absorb all those positions.”

The post ‘We Have A List’: Pundits And Democrats Plan To Hold Trump Supporters Accountable appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Mary Margaret Olohan on November 6, 2020

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested Friday that “Trump sycophants” should be held accountable for their “complicity in the future.”

The recently reelected congresswoman tweeted asking whether anyone was keeping track of comments made by “Trump sycophants.” She was likely referring to supporters of President Donald Trump who are alleging that voter fraud is causing the president to fall behind 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Trump has not provided evidence that voter fraud is costing him the election.

“Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future,” she asked. “I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future.”

“Lol at the ‘party of personal responsibility’ being upset at the idea of being responsible for their behavior over last four years,” she added.

Ocasio-Cortez’s comments come as other high profile social media users announced the start of a “Trump Accountability Project” that will “make sure anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America is held responsible for what they did.”

We’re launching the Trump Accountability Project to make sure anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America is held responsible for what they did.

Join us and help spread the word.https://t.co/wtVxGIlYOK

— Emily Abrams (@emabrams) November 6, 2020

“We must never forget those who furthered the Trump agenda,” the Trump Accountability Project website says. “We should welcome in our fellow Americans with whom we differ politically. But those who took a paycheck from the Trump Administration should not profit from their efforts to tear our democracy apart.”

The website description continued: “The world should never forget those who, when faced with a decision, chose to put their money, their time, and their reputations behind separating children from their families, encouraging racism and anti-Semitism, and negligently causing the unnecessary loss of life and economic devastation from our country’s failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The post Ocasio-Cortez Suggests ‘Trump Sycophants’ Should Be Held Accountable ‘In The Future’ appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Andrew Trunsky on November 2, 2020

One day from the election, President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden are zigzagging in competitive states across the Midwest in one final push before Nov. 3.

Trump will hold rallies Monday in Fayetteville, North Carolina; Scranton, Pennsylvania; Traverse City, Michigan and Kenosha, Wisconsin before returning to Michigan and campaigning in Grand Rapids, the same city where he ended his campaign in 2016.

Biden will head to Cleveland Monday before campaigning across Pennsylvania.

Both candidates blitzed across the Midwest over the weekend as well, with Trump holding two rallies in Pennsylvania on Saturday in Reading and Butler and five rallies in five states Sunday in Michigan, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Biden campaigned Saturday in Detroit and Flint, Michigan, alongside former President Barack Obama, and campaigned in Philadelphia Sunday while vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris traveled to North Carolina and Georgia.

Biden leads in Pennsylvania, which some forecasts predict will be the tipping point state, by 4.9 points, though Trump won the state by less than one point in 2016. In Michigan and Wisconsin, the other two midwestern states that sealed Trump’s victory, Biden leads by 8.1 and 8.2 points, respectively.

In Wisconsin, the third Rust Belt state that helped seal Trump’s win over Hillary Clinton, Biden leads by 8.7 points.

Earlier last week, Trump held rallies in Michigan, Wisconsin and Nebraska, Arizona, Florida and Minnesota, while Biden campaigned across Georgia alongside the state’s two Democratic senatorial candidates, and traveled to Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Biden leads Trump in Arizona, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia by 3.1, 1.9, 2.4 and 1.1 points, respectively, while Trump leads Biden by 1.8 points in Iowa. Trump also leads in Ohio by 0.4 and Texas one point.

Biden leads in Minnesota, a state which Clinton won four years ago by 8.9 points, according to FiveThirtyEight.

The Economist’s forecast gives Trump just a 5% chance at winning reelection, while FiveThirtyEight’s forecast gives the president a 10% chance.

Both forecasts have Democrats favored to flip the Senate and expand their majority the House.

Though Biden is favored, more people have bet on Trump to win reelection, according to OddsChecker.

The post One Day Left — Here’s Where The Election Stands appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Peter Hassonon October 21, 2020

The Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump political group, appears to have helped an Iranian disinformation effort go viral.

Federal authorities concluded that Iran was behind a string of threatening emails targeting Democratic voters in swing states, The Washington Post reportedWednesday. The email senders claimed to be members of the Proud Boys, a fringe right-wing group.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Ratcliffe confirmed the Iranian efforts during a press conference Wednesday evening.

Ratcliffe told reporters that “we have already seen Iran sending spoofed emails designed to intimidate voters, incite social unrest, and damage President Trump. You may have seen some reporting on this in the last 24 hours or you may have even been one of the recipients of those emails.”

The Lincoln Project helped the Iranian misinformation go viral on social media, garnering more than 12,000 retweets by amplifying the false claim that the Proud Boys were trying to intimidate Democratic voters.

“The Proud Boys are attempting to scare voters away from the polls. This is punishable by up to a year in jail and a blatant attempt to prevent people from voting. Let’s find them and make them famous,” the Lincoln Project tweet said.

The political group, which was founded by anti-Trump Republican consultants, deleted the tweet Wednesday night.

Iran has previously been caught running anti-Trump influence campaigns. Iran used hundreds of fake Facebook and Twitter accounts to run an anti-Trump, pro-Bernie Sanders propaganda effort, the two companies announced in August 2018.

The Lincoln Project didn’t immediately return the Daily Caller News Foundation’s email seeking comment.

The post Lincoln Project Appears To Have Helped Iranian Disinformation Effort Go Viral appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post Debate Commission’s New Rule Designates Mic Mute Times For Thursday’s Debate appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“Facts: I put out the CWBA. Both parties contacted me. Dems said we’ll address the CWBA after the election. Trump campaign made some adjustments to their plan after talking to us about the CWBA”, Cube tweeted Wednesday.

The news that the rapper even sat down with President Trump has Twitter raving, claiming he is a sellout for even agreeing to sit down with Republicans and the Trump administration in the name of helping black Americans.

Ice Cube’s involvement in the Platinum Plan has him branded a “traitor to his race” by individuals who once called themselves his fans. This criticism of Cube’s decision to reach out to the Trump administration to make a change has to be among the most asinine statements a human being could utter. The evidence of this is displayed in the fact that those who once called themselves fans of Ice Cube’s work have now branded him a traitor for trying to shape the policy of the current administration.

It downright foolish to tie anyone’s ethnicity to a pledge of allegiance to any political party. That is the mentality of a slave and not a free man. Government works for the people. Men are meant to be free and as prosperous as their own industry will afford them, not to live as servants to a bureaucracy. I applaud Ice Cube as he appears to be using his platform to make a positive change for the black community in America. Who could fault him for that, except those who wish to keep the boot of government on the necks of black people in this country?

The truth of the matter is white Leftists who seek to shut Ice Cube up are no different than slave masters, and their black allies who aid in this effort are the modern equivalent of black overseers whose only objective was to keep slaves in line, giving themselves the illusion of power.

Ice Cube did not endorse President Donald Trump, nor is he cozying up to the GOP; the same could be said about the Democrats. Cube made it clear that he reached out to both Republicans and Democrats regarding what he has coined a “Contract with Black America” and that, so far, Republicans were the only major party who would agree to have an audience with him.

“Everybody’s been mad at me because I didn’t jump on the f**king gravy train of these candidates, especially Joe Biden and Harris. I don’t – none of them – no president has done right by us, so I don’t trust none of them. So putting all of our hopes and dreams behind any of them just don’t work, we gotta make them do what we want them to do, and there’s only a few ways to do that.”, Cube said in a video posted to Twitter last Sunday.

There are few details currently known about what implementation of The Platnium Plan would look like; however, it has been announced that it would include collaborating with cities and counties to address mental illness and substance abuse, further criminal justice reform, and remove barriers to employment in the black community such as occupational licensing, employment fees and expungement of inaccurate criminal records.

Even though the mainstream media and many of Ice Cube’s so-called fans are trying to cancel him, he appears to be having a good day when it comes to fighting to break down barriers that face the black community, and “he didn’t even have to use his AK!”

Image: screenshot Twitter

The post Triggered America: Ice Cube’s Fans Outraged Over His Collaboration With Trump appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.