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.

Thomas Catenacci on November 16, 2021

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confused a number of facts about fossil fuels in a video to her followers explaining why pipelines are bad for the country.

The congresswoman mistakenly asserted that the Keystone XL and Line 3 pipelines were proposed to increase U.S. natural gas exports in the video she posted on her Instagram account Saturday. The two pipelines would transport crude oil, not natural gas, from Canada into the U.S. as an import, according to their operators.

“When you look at Keystone XL, and when you look at a lot of these other pipelines, people say, ‘Oh, this is for energy, you know, independence in the United States,’” Ocasio-Cortez stated during the video which has garnered more than 180,000 views. “We actually already produce enough to power our own country, whether you agree with it or not.”

“A lot of these pipelines are being built so that the United States can export and sell natural gas abroad,” she continued. “And, you know, people make geopolitical arguments as to why that should be the case.”

Line 3 has transported crude oil into the U.S. through Minnesota since the 1960s. Enbridge, the company that operates the pipeline, is currently constructing a $2.9 billion Line 3 replacement, but the company has faced intense resistance from environmental activists.

Ocasio-Cortez said that she believes Line 3 “should not exist.”

The Keystone XL pipeline would have similarly taken crude oil into the U.S. from western Canada. However, the pipeline — proposed as an extension to an already existing line that stretches from North Dakota to Texas — was canceled by its operator TC Energy after President Joe Biden revoked its federal permit.

More than 20 states have accused the president of overstepping his constitutional authority in an ongoing federal lawsuit challenging the permit revocation.

“The President has certain prerogatives to act on behalf of the United States in foreign affairs,” the lawsuit stated. “But as far as domestic law is concerned, the President must work with and abide by the limits set by Congress—whether he likes them or not.”

Republicans and fossil fuel industry advocates have argued that ensuring the U.S. has a steady, reliable supply of oil and natural gas protects national security. They also argue that the U.S. should leverage its own natural resources to be a net exporter of oil and gas rather than rely on foreign powers for energy.

But the Biden administration has hamstrung the U.S. fossil fuel industry, canceling pipelines, abandoning large drilling projects and introducing sweeping regulations, while asking Middle Eastern countries for more oil and Russia for more gas.

The post AOC Confuses Natural Gas For Oil In Video Explaining Why Pipelines Are Bad appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Women’s Group Demands CNN Suspend Chris Cuomo, Investigate How He Advised His Brother On #METOO Allegations

Mary Margaret Olohan on May 21, 2021

• The women’s group Ultra Violet called on CNN Thursday to suspend Chris Cuomo following reports that Cuomo advised his brother, the governor of New York, on how to respond to #METOO allegations. 
• “Make no mistake — this wasn’t just a brother talking to his brother about their lives, or even about politics,” communications director at UltraViolet Bridget Todd said in a statement. “This was a major network news anchor advising the Governor of New York to actively push back against sexual harassment allegations and denegrate [sic] survivors of abuse by defining their calls for accountability as ‘cancel culture.’”
• “The fact that after this advice, Governor Cuomo instructed surrogates to attack and defame those who courageously came forward with their stories should not be lost on anyone,” Todd added. 

The women’s group Ultra Violet called on CNN Thursday to suspend Chris Cuomo following reports that Cuomo advised his brother, the governor of New York, on how to respond to #METOO allegations.

The CNN host reportedly told Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo that he should not resign from his position, the Washington Post reported, and allegedly cited “cancel culture” as a reason that Governor Cuomo should stand firm.

“Reports that Chris Cuomo not only joined strategy calls with his brother, Governor Andrew Cuomo, on how to respond to the numerous sexual harassment allegations against him, but actively advised his brother to aggressively push back on the allegations, is deeply disturbing and completely unacceptable,” communications director at UltraViolet Bridget Todd said in a statement. UltraViolet has previously called on Andrew Cuomo to resign over the allegations.

“Make no mistake — this wasn’t just a brother talking to his brother about their lives, or even about politics,” Todd continued. “This was a major network news anchor advising the Governor of New York to actively push back against sexual harassment allegations and denegrate [sic] survivors of abuse by defining their calls for accountability as ‘cancel culture.’ The fact that after this advice, Governor Cuomo instructed surrogates to attack and defame those who courageously came forward with their stories should not be lost on anyone.”

The UltraViolet communications director said that this “raises serious questions about” how the CNN host covers sexual harassment allegations and how Cuomo’s “position at the network could potentially intimidate or silence other reporters who were looking into the story.”

“CNN should immediately suspend Chris Cuomo and conduct a thorough investigation into whether or not his position of authority at the network has impacted how others covered the allegations against his brother, Governor Cuomo,” Todd said. “Anything less is unacceptable, and further harms survivors of sexual abuse, who are already disinclined to come forward for fear of retaliation from men in power like the Cuomo brothers.”

CNN did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The embattled governor is being investigated by both the state attorney general’s office for allegations of workplace sexual misconduct and by the Department of Justice for his role in knowingly undercounting the deaths of New York nursing home patients. Andrew Cuomo has denied that he ever touched anyone inappropriately. His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

Chris Cuomo apologized for advising his brother on his show Thursday night, reminding the audience that he didn’t cover the #METOO allegations against the governor, calling his actions a “mistake,” and emphasizing that he is “fiercely loyal” to his family.

“It’s not always easy,” Cuomo said. “People can say and write what they want, but I want you to know the truth. How I helped my brother also matters. When my brother’s situation became turbulent, being looped into calls with other friends of his and advisers, that did include some of his staff, I understand why that was a problem for CNN. It will not happen again.”

“This is no revelation,” the CNN host said of the reports that he advised his brother. “I have said it publicly and I certainly have never hidden it. I can be objective about just about any topic. But not about my family.”

The post Women’s Group Demands CNN Suspend Chris Cuomo, Investigate How He Advised His Brother On #METOO Allegations appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

A lesser known detail is that 15,000 elderly are dead in New York after COVID-19 patients were forced into nursing homes.

Former Democrat Presidential Candidate and Spiritual Healer Marianne Williamson, aided with mystical vagina scented candles and crystals from Gwyneth Paltrow’s website Goop, channeled the spirit of the 15,000th Grandma who died as a result of Andrew Cuomo’s policy of forcing COVID patients into nursing homes.

Grandma Abigail Silberberg spoke with Williamson via a spiritual session.

Silberberg told Williamson that she had a room all to herself in the nursing home where she used to watch games shows and Matlock reruns. 

“Then one day they set up 2 beds in my room with people who could not stop coofing.”

She continued, “The next thing I knew, I had trouble breathing. Medics came with an ambulance and took me to the hospital, put me in a wheelchair, pushed me in a lap around the emergency room, then put me back in the ambulance and brought me right back to the nursing home, where I died.”

Williamson asked Silberberg who was to blame for her death and why it was Donald Trump.

Silberberg responded, “I hold Cuomo responsible for this, where he and Mayor de Blasio kept blaming Jews like me. Maybe Cuomo should take responsibility for killing me and 15,000 others. This shouldn’t surprise anyone that he did this. After all, his people killed Jesus.”

Williamson attempted to ask one final loaded question, but Silberberg demanded those awful candles be blown out which ended the session.

The post 15,000th Grandma Accuses Andrew Cuomo of Killing Them appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Because Cuomo’s mandate prohibited nursing homes from screening residents released from the hospital for COVID-19, many have suspected it needlessly contributed to the death of elderly New Yorkers.

Now, a new report from the nonpartisan New York think tank the Empire Center found that Cuomo’s policy is correlated with higher nursing home death rates.

“The admission of coronavirus-positive patients into New York nursing homes under March 25 guidance from the New York State Department of Health was associated with a statistically significant increase in resident deaths,” the report found.

According to the report, data show each new admission of a COVID-positive patient was correlated with .09 additional deaths and associated with an average of 4.2 additional deaths per facility. Both figures fall outside the margin of error.

“Statewide, the findings imply that COVID-positive new admissions between late March and early May, which numbered 6,327, were associated with several hundred and possibly more than 1,000 additional resident deaths,” the report says.

A Reversal and Accusations of Coverup

As of Wednesday, more than 47,000 New Yorkers had died with or of the coronavirus, according to official statistics, which is more relative to population than any state with the exception of New Jersey.

Unlike many states, New York was hit particularly hard early in the pandemic. Following devastating outbreaks in March and April, New York suffered roughly 20,000 deaths by early May. Roughly 5,300 of these were classified as nursing home deaths, according to the Associated Press.

On May 10, under increased scrutiny and political pressure, Cuomo announced he was reversing his controversial order.

“We’re just not going to send a person who is positive to a nursing home after a hospital visit. Period,” Cuomo said. “If there’s any issue, the resident must be referred to the department of health which will find alternative care.”

Shortly after New York’s order was rescinded, however, it was revealed that the New York State Department of Health had changed the way it was recording nursing home deaths. Sometime in late April, nursing home residents who died of COVID-19 were no longer being counted as “nursing home deaths” by the state if they were transported to the hospital and died there rather than at the actual nursing home.

“[New York’s coronavirus tracker] currently does not include out of facility deaths,” NYSDOH spokeswoman Jill Montag told the Daily Caller. “Deaths of nursing home and adult care facility residents that occurred at hospitals is accounted for in the overall fatality data on our COVID-19 tracker.”

Though FEE and other publications wrote about the matter at the time, the apparent effort to conceal or minimize nursing home deaths drew little mainstream media attention for months. That changed in January when New York’s state attorney general Letitia James released a damning report that concluded “a larger number of nursing home residents died from COVID-19 than DOH data reflected.”

How large a number? As ProPublica reported, we know: 12,743.

That is the Cuomo’s administration’s own count, which was updated after the state attorney’s report was released, and it’s “roughly 50% higher than any loss of life previously acknowledged by the administration,” ProPublica’s Joe Sexton observed. (Subsequent reporting alleges that the Cuomo administration is still underreporting nursing home deaths.)

The fallout was severe.

On February 12, the New York Times reported that Cuomo was facing “allegations of a coverup” and “lawmakers from both parties have called for stripping the governor of the emergency powers that he has exercised during the pandemic.”

Bipartisan calls for an official inquiry gained steam, including from popular Queens Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

On Monday, Democrat state Assemblyman Ron Kim called for Cuomo’s impeachment, stating the governor threatened him and pressured him to lie about his administration’s activities.

“On a private phone call, the governor berated me, threatened my career, and demanded that I issue a fabricated statement,” Kim wrote in Newsweek.

A Warning Unheeded and the Folly of Hubris

Whatever Cuomo’s political fate, the nursing home scandal has all the markings of a Greek tragedy.

As the Empire Center’s report makes clear, hundreds (if not thousands) of New Yorkers died because of Cuomo’s order, which may prove to be the governor’s undoing. This would be calamitous in itself, but the tragedy is deepened by the fact it was all born of hubris; Cuomo’s great arrogance.

The governor was warned by trade industry leaders and health experts that his policy carried the seeds of disaster.

“We are deeply concerned with the recent New York State order,” the American Health Care Association and the National Center for Assisted Living said in a joint statement when Cuomo issued his order over their objections. “Based on what we currently know about how this virus can spread in institutional settings, the hospitalizations and case fatality rate, this action by a state will put the many frail and older adults who reside in nursing homes at risk.”

Weeks later, at an April 23 press conference, Cuomo was asked about objections over his policy, which some warned was resulting in excess deaths in nursing homes.

“They don’t have the right to object,” Cuomo answered before the reporter finished his question. “That is the rule, and that is the regulation, and they have to comply with it.”

This is hubris on a massive scale, a trait that for millennia humans were warned against.

In the classical works of Greek literature, hubris (excessive pride) is the character flaw that causes the downfall of many heroes, including Oedipus, Antigone, and Achilles. In many cases, the tragedy is compounded by the hero’s failure to heed a warning, explicit or implicit.

Cuomo’s actions constitute hubris on several levels, but in one sense it’s a character flaw common among politicians who believe they possess the knowledge and foresight to replace individual decision making with their own. The economist F.A. Hayek saw this tendency as “the fatal conceit” of mankind: the idea that “man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes.”

Cuomo and indeed other governors responsible for similar policies are guilty of Hayek’s fatal conceit.

“In their hubris, they presumed to know enough to centrally plan a complex society’s response to a complex pandemic, and to know more than individuals with local knowledge, industry expertise, and skin in the game,” I wrote back in May, “like the elder care experts and businesspeople who tried to warn policymakers about the disastrous effects the policy would have.”

The antidote to this conceit, Hayek understood, is humility before our infinitely complex world “which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society.”

With a bit more humility, Cuomo could have avoided political scandal and—more importantly—not jeopardized the lives of thousands of elderly people in nursing homes.

It’s a lesson we’d all do well to learn to avoid such a tragic ending.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The post Cuomo’s Controversial COVID Policy Linked to Higher Nursing Home Deaths, Study Finds appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post Ocasio-Cortez Calls for ‘Full Investigation’ into Cuomo Nursing Home Scandal appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post 9 Health Officials In New York Have Resigned Because Of Andrew Cuomo appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post New York County Spent $227,000 In Federal COVID Funds On Pork, Pizza And Cutlery appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Jake Dima 

Tickets to Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s online birthday party fundraiser cost up to $10,000, according to an invitation for the event.

The governor’s “Virtual Birthday and Holiday Reception” includes a price tag of $10,000 for those wishing to attend a private online reception with Cuomo, according to a flier obtained by the New York Post. The high-dollar ticket also includes admission to the main event for friends and acquaintances, according to the flier.

The Democrat’s main online event will feature appearances from Whoopi Goldberg, Ben Stiller, Henry Winkler, Robert DeNiro and Rosie Perez, the Post reported.

The event, which is also a fundraiser for Cuomo, will also charge $5,000 for six friends of the governor to attend, $2,500 for three people, $1,000 per guest to the main reception and $50 for young professionals and activists, according to the flier. The online party follows Cuomo’s actual birthday that was on Dec. 6, when the governor turned 63, the Post reported.

The Democrat shuttered indoor dining in New York City on Friday amid a sharp increase in coronavirus cases throughout the state, according to the New York Times.

The post Cuomo Charges Up To $10,000 For Tickets To Celebrity-Packed ‘Virtual Birthday’ Party appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post Undercover Cops Order Food Then Arrest Bar Owner For Defying NYC Indoor Dining Rules appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.