Showing posts with label Don Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Don Trump. Show all posts

Biden pardons most ever in a day


Sniffing Slow Joe Biden has just commuted roughly 1,500 sentences and pardons 39 people, most ever in a single day... The so called President is commuting the sentences of nearly 1,500 people who were released from prison and placed on home confinement during the coronavirus pandemic and is pardoning 39 Americans convicted of nonviolent crimes. It's the largest single-day act of clemency in modern history. The commutations announced Thursday are for people who have served out home confinement sentences for at least one year after they were released. Prisons were uniquely bad for spreading the virus and some inmates were released in part to stop the spread. At one point, 1 in 5 prisoners had COVID-19, according to a tally kept by The Associated Press.

Many of the pardons are for long-ago, non-violent drug offenses people maybe who were jailed under his very own Crime Bills? Hmmmm Among the pardoned is 39-year-old Emily Good Nelson of Indianapolis, convicted of non-violent drug offenses at 19. Since her release, the White House said she has completed her bachelor's and master's degrees, and has volunteered as a counselor at an in-patient psychiatric facility. Russell Thomas Portner, 74, of Washington state, is also among those pardoned for non-violent drug offenses. He served in the Army during the Vietnam War and earned a Bronze Star. Since his conviction, he has married, raised four children, run a business, and developed a reputation for generosity and community service, the White House said.

The full list of pardons and commutations is here.

"These actions represent the largest single-day grant of clemency in modern history," the White House said. Which means nothing as he's spent decades making sure he locked up these same people for such petty crimes and keeping them locked up. Now all these years later he's saying "yeah I'm removing that stain on your record..." Good job Joe... Bur El Sniffler of the Glue himself old slow JOE Biden said he would be taking more steps in the weeks ahead and would continue to review clemency petitions. The second largest single-day act of clemency was by Barack Obama, with 330, shortly before he left office in 2017.

"America was built on the promise of possibility and second chances," Mr. Biden said in a statement. "As president, I have the great privilege of extending mercy to people who have demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation, restoring opportunity for Americans to participate in daily life and contribute to their communities, and taking steps to remove sentencing disparities for non-violent offenders, especially those convicted of drug offenses." 

Yeah right after what he's recorded of saying anyone with a ROCK should be sent to prison. But this was only for black people as he called them "Beyond the Pale" and he said he didn't want his kids raised in a "Jungle" well Hunter turned out to be a crack head loser. Dumb as a rock he smoked paid for his daddy, and CCP, Russian money. But let's continue as the clemency follows a broad pardon for his son deadbeat Hunter, who was prosecuted for gun and tax crimes, criticizing the Justice Department's handling of his son's case in his statement explaining the pardon. The president had previously said he would not pardon Hunter which we all knew was a lie from the day he said it.


One of Biden's closest buddies, former top aide Anita Dunn, said she agreed with his decision to pardon Hunter but she criticized the way in which the pardon happened. "I do not agree with the way it was done, I don't agree with the timing, and I don't agree, frankly, with the attack on our judicial system," Dunn said at The New York Times' annual DealBook summit. But listen Anita that's your friend, and he's a scumbag and he doesn't care his son gets away with crimes most would spend life in prison for. This is who Joe is and it's why he's got away with his crimes for decades... A Career politician and career criminal.

Joe is under pressure from advocacy groups to pardon broad swaths of people, including those on federal death row, before the Trump administration takes over in January. He's also weighing whether to issue preemptive pardons to those who investigated Trump's effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and are facing possible retribution when he takes office. Now you know this is happening and if he doesn't and let's them take the fall for what he also is involved in this for sure shows you how upset he was when he was told he couldn't run for a second term due to you know the thing. No brains in that head that worked. 

Essentially Biden is as close to being an actual Zombie at this point. But those pardoned Thursday had been convicted of nonviolent crimes such as drug offenses and turned their lives around, White House lawyers said. They include a woman who led emergency response teams during natural disasters; a church deacon who has worked as an addiction counselor and youth counselor; a doctoral student in molecular bio sciences; and a decorated military veteran.

So as of now ok no harm done but let's see how it goes and if Biden who had previously issued 122 commutations and 21 other pardons. Also broadly pardoned those convicted of use and simple possession of marijuana on federal lands and in the District of Columbia, and pardoned former U.S. service members convicted of violating a now-repealed military ban on consensual gay sex. hmmm Makes sense as he's been very open on the whole "gay sex" and transgender people since he became President. This is almost like he loves men who dresses like women? 

Chicks with... Well you know the thing.

Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and 34 other lawmakers are urging the president to pardon environmental and human rights lawyer Steven Donziger, who was imprisoned or under house arrest for three years because of a contempt of court charge related to his work representing Indigenous farmers in a lawsuit against Chevron. Others are advocating for Mr. Biden to commute the sentences of federal death row prisoners. His attorney general, Merrick Garland, paused federal executions. Biden had said on the campaign trail in 2020 that he wanted to end the death penalty but he never did, and now, with Trump coming back into office, it's likely executions will resume. During his first term, Trump presided over an unprecedented number of federal executions, carried out during the height of the pandemic. 

While TRUMP is some how being blamed for this the record number was reached because the house holding Democrats ordered them. Trump had nothing to do with it as this is a "state" issue mostly, and it's been like this for a long time. 

For those who don't know how this works. The method of execution for federal prisoners is determined by the state where the conviction took place. If the state doesn't have the death penalty, the judge chooses a state that does if it's determined this person deserves the "death penalty" ... Where again it's not issued in said state. Remember it's the state-sanctioned punishment of executing an individual for a specific crime. 

More pardons are coming before Biden leaves office on Jan. 20, but it's not clear whether he'll take action to guard against possible prosecution by Trump, an untested use of the power. "My administration will continue reviewing clemency petitions to advance equal justice under the law, promote public safety, support rehabilitation and reentry, and provide meaningful second chances," Mr. Biden said in a statement. 

The president has been taking the idea seriously and has been thinking about it for as much as six months before the presidential election but has been concerned about the precedent it would set, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss internal discussions.

But those who received the pardons would have to accept them. New California Sen. Adam Schiff, who was the chairman of the congressional committee that investigated the violent Jan. 6 insurrection, said such a pardon from Mr. Biden would be "unnecessary," and that the president shouldn't be spending his waning days in office worrying about this. A president has the power to both pardon, in which a person is relieved of guilt and punishment, or commute a sentence, which reduces or eliminates the punishment but doesn't exonerate the wrongdoing. It's customary for a president to grant mercy at the end of his term, using the power of the office to wipe away records or end prison terms.

Before pardoning his son, Joe had repeatedly pledged not to do so. He said in a statement explaining his reversal that the prosecution had been poisoned by politics. The decision prompted criminal justice advocates and lawmakers to put additional public pressure on the administration to use that same power for everyday Americans. It wasn't a very popular move; only about 2 in 10 Americans approved of his decision, according to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. 

"The President's categorical approach to clemency has also inspired leaders across the country to take similar action," the White House said Thursday. "Over ten states and localities, including Maryland and Massachusetts, have issued categorical clemency for marijuana convictions, impacting hundreds of thousands of people and allowing individuals to move past their convictions and move on with their daily lives."

Trump election interference case Dropped!


Don't know about you folks but Trump was wrong about one thing! I will never get tired of seeing our side win! LOL Now hear this! The Judge grants Jack Smith request to dismiss Jan. 6 charges against Trump... After the appeal was dropped in the Florida docs case Trump says lawfare against him was a 'political hijacking,' but says he 'persevered against all odds, and WON' So yes he did as now a judge has dropped again all the charges against President-elect Donald Trump in the D.C. case against him, following a request that Special Counsel Jack Smith made on Monday.

The decision concerns the investigation into the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach. Fox News Digital previously learned of Smith's request earlier on Monday. "The Government has moved to dismiss the Superseding Indictment without prejudice," U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in a decision. "Defendant does not oppose the Motion…and the court will grant it." Jack also filed a motion to drop his appeal in his classified records case against Trump a case that was tossed in July by federal Judge Aileen Cannon. 

Jude Cannon ruled Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel. The moves come after Smith had already filed a motion to vacate all deadlines in the 2020 election interference case against Trump in Washington, D.C. a widely expected move, but one that stopped short of dropping the case against Trump completely. Smith had said his team planned to give an updated report on the official status of the case against Trump on Dec. 2. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in the case and took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing on the basis of presidential immunity. The high court ruled that Trump was immune from prosecution for official presidential acts, forcing Smith to file a new indictment. Trump pleaded not guilty to those new charges, too. Trump's attorneys have been seeking to have the election interference charges dropped in Washington, D.C., alleging that Smith was appointed unlawfully.

"The American People re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Great Again. Today’s decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump, and is a major victory for the rule of law," Trump spokesman and incoming White House communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement. "The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country." Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges stemming from both of Smith’s investigations.

Smith is expected to resign as special counsel before Trump takes office. Trump posted to his Truth Social Monday afternoon that the cases against him "are empty and lawless and should never have been brought." "These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought. Over $100 Million Dollars of Taxpayer Dollars has been wasted in the Democrat Party’s fight against their Political Opponent, ME," Trump posted. "Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before." Although the case will still go forward for Trump’s two co-defendants, valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira, the order satisfies Smith’s request to terminate an appeal in the case as it concerns Trump. In both cases, Smith cited Trump’s upcoming inauguration and Department of Justice guidelines that prohibit the prosecution of sitting presidents. Smith also moved to dismiss Trump’s election meddling case without prejudice. Smith was contesting Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the case in the classified materials case, which found that the special counsel had been appointed illegally.

Liberals clung to hope that the appeal would be successful, claiming that Judge Cannon’s decision counters 50 years of prior rulings regarding special counsel regulations, and the court has previously reversed one of her decisions. “Nonetheless, it brings to an end for Trump a serious case focused largely on his conduct after leaving the White House. It was potentially the stronger of Smith’s two cases after a Supreme Court ruling that determined former presidents retain broad immunity for their conduct while in office. Prosecutors brought both Espionage Act and obstruction of justice charges against Trump after he repeatedly refused requests to return White House records, including defying a subpoena,” The Hill reported.


Trump said "state Prosecutors and District Attorneys, such as Fani Willis and her lover, Nathan Wade (who had absolutely zero experience in cases such as this, but was paid MILLIONS, enough for them to take numerous trips and cruises around the globe!), Letitia James, who inappropriately, unethically, and probably illegally, campaigned on ‘GETTING TRUMP’ in order to win Political Office, and Alvin Bragg, who himself never wanted to bring this case against me, but was forced to do so by the Justice Department and the Democrat Party."
Trump reportedly has a plan in place to fire the entire team of Jack Smith, including the prosecutor himself, and investigate the results of the previous election in which he was defeated by President Joe Biden. The president-elect plans to even get rid of the career attorneys who are typically protected from political retribution, The Washington Post reported. Trump “wants to clean out ‘the bad guys, the people who went after me,’” a source close to the president-elect said. The special prosecutor’s team consists of dozens of attorneys, FBI agents, and staff who were likely assigned to the cases and did not choose to be on his team, the report said. “President Trump campaigned on firing rogue bureaucrats who have engaged in the illegal weaponization of our American justice system, and the American people can expect he will deliver on that promise,” Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary for the president-elect, said to The Post.

“House Republicans previously told Justice Department officials that anyone who had worked on the Trump cases with Smith should preserve all of their communications in a move that signaled that Smith, among others, could be targeted by congressional investigators,” the report said. “Trump also apparently plans to use the DOJ to investigate the 2020 election in which he lost to President Joe Biden but has continued to claim that his loss was due to widespread cheating. Many investigations have found no proof of the widespread voter fraud Trump and his GOP allies claimed,” it said. Smith is likely to step down from his position after ending his cases against President-elect Donald Trump, according to reports. A Justice Department source told CNN that Smith is in talks with DOJ leaders about how best to wind down the Jan. 6 case as well as an appeal of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling over the summer to throw out his classified documents case against the soon-to-be 47th president.

“Trump has threatened to fire Smith, but Smith expects to be gone before Trump takes office,” CNN reported. “The talks between Smith and DOJ leaders extend beyond Trump’s criminal cases to questions about what to do with other defendants in the classified documents case as well as the special counsel’s office and what happens to its budget and staff,” the outlet continued. Smith is required to submit a report on his work to Attorney General Merrick Garland. It remains unclear whether the timing of Smith’s departure will be affected if the report needs to be reviewed and approved by the intelligence community, according to sources familiar with the discussions, CNN said. Smith is working to finalize the report before Trump takes office, as Garland will need to approve it and decide whether any part of it will be released publicly, one source said. The New York Times was the first to report Smith’s plans to resign from his post.

As president, Trump is afforded protections against prosecution that he didn’t have as a private citizen. Longstanding Justice Department policy dictates that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for crimes, and a Supreme Court ruling this summer confirmed that Trump has “absolute” immunity from prosecution for actions taken within his core constitutional powers as president, CNN said. Before his departure, Smith will need to determine how to resolve the two criminal cases he initiated against Trump. In Florida, Smith has appealed Cannon’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case, which found that Smith was unconstitutionally appointed as special counsel and that the funding for his office also violated the law. In Washington, D.C., Smith’s team is moving forward with the criminal case accusing Trump of orchestrating a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election following the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, CNN noted.

Michael Cohen hilariously trolled

Michael Cohen hilariously trolled with face filters during TikTok live.. You can't make this up folks. This is really just pure KARMA!


This crazy man just doesn't want to stop right? Well I think someone at least found a way to have fun with him as you can see in the video, and I for one hope more, and more people aim their sights on trolling him in this very funny way. As he won't go away and leave our President alone! Let's make him know we don't want his kind around so make it funny, and keep it online and clean... But I say have fun!

"Can we stop with that?" Donald Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen was made to look like a turkey — literally — during a livestream on TikTok. The 58-year-old attorney fumed as TikTok users added digital filters to his face against his will, including a turkey headpiece, an Elvis-like hairdo, green laser eyes and more.

RFK Jr. dropping out of the race help Trump?


OK So rumor has it that following a controversy filled campaign that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has ran and his poll numbers compared to Trump are reportedly planning to suspend their presidential bid. He is considering endorsing former President Donald Trump and reportedly hopeful that he might secure the position of Trump’s health secretary if he wins. Kennedy was an environmental lawyer known for his work cleaning up the Hudson River with a storied last name who in recent years has become known for spreading conspiracy theories about medicine, including vaccines and anti-depressants. He used the popularity he gained as an anti-vaxxer during the pandemic to briefly challenge President Joe Biden in the Democratic primary before announcing an independent bid for president in October 2023.

He had been seen as a potential spoiler for both candidates, given his connection to the Democratic Kennedy dynasty as well as his embrace of the anti-establishment and anti-vaccine views held by certain segments of the GOP. He was polling around 10 percent nationally for the better part of 2024, and even higher in some swing state polls. But he struggled to get on the ballot in many states, though his campaign maintains that he has secured enough signatures to do so in all but Kentucky, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Wyoming. And after Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee, he seemed to hold less sway among voters who were turned off by Biden. His poll numbers consequently cratered to under 5 percent.

Despite Kennedy’s flagging national numbers, polling suggests his exit from the race could still help Trump, with whom he’s become decidedly more cozy in recent months. Trump wouldn’t have to win a lot of Kennedy’s potential voters to make a difference in key swing states; if the race is as close as it was in 2020, Trump gaining even a fraction of a percent from Kennedy could make the difference. Trump probably has the most to gain from Kennedy dropping out. Kennedy has increasingly endeared himself to Republican voters while struggling to get the same support among Democrats and independents. And polls conducted in recent months, including since Biden dropped out of the race, suggest that Trump would pick up more of Kennedy’s supporters. 

Any margin would likely be small but potentially significant and his endorsement of the GOP leader Donald Trump could be the tide turning moment in this election. The Republicans tend to see Kennedy more favorably than Democrats, and those with favorable views toward him tend to have more favorable opinions of Trump than of Harris, according to a July AP-NORC poll conducted before Biden dropped out. Several national polls conducted since Harris became the presumptive nominee have also tested a race between Harris, Trump, and Kennedy, as well as a two-way race between Harris and Trump. Trump tends to get a bigger bump than Harris when Kennedy is excluded. 

In an August Reuters/Ipsos poll of registered voters, for instance, Harris received 42 percent support, Trump 37 percent, and Kennedy 4 percent, while 15 percent supported another candidate, weren’t sure who they would support, or weren’t sure if they would vote at all. But when voters were pushed to select either Trump or Harris, 49 percent backed Harris and 47 percent Trump a 10 percentage point boost for Trump.

Trump had a similar edge with Kennedy voters in a July Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll. In a three-way contest, Harris earned 44 percent support, Trump 47 percent, and Kennedy 10 percent. In a head-to-head poll, Harris earned 48 percent and Trump 52 percent. It may seem like the advantage Trump gains when Kennedy is out of the picture is relatively small. But Biden won in 2020 by exceedingly narrow margins in six key battleground states; in Arizona, it was by less than 11,000 votes. On the margin, Kennedy’s supporters could make a difference, depending on where they’re distributed. In Arizona, for example, Kennedy is still polling at about 6 percent, according to The Hill’s polling average. 

Of course, he might not actually win that large a vote share if he decides to stay in the race; third-party candidates tend to poll much better than they actually perform on Election Day, when their supporters are confronted with the reality that their preferred candidate won’t win. But that vote share would have been more than enough to have swung the 2020 results in the other direction.

The same is true in other swing states, where polling suggests a very tight race. An early August New York Times/Siena survey of registered voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin found Harris leading Trump 46 percent to 43 percent when respondents were given all third-party candidates to choose from. When asked to pick between just Harris and Trump, the gap tightened to 48 and 46 percent, respectively. Those states are likely to be key, given their high electoral college vote count and in most scenarios, Harris would need all three to win. Harris’s entry into the race likely limits the impact of Kennedy’s exit While RFK Jr.s supporters may still be able to make an important impact on the margins, their power to drag the Democratic nominee’s polling down seems to have diminished substantially.

Before Harris became the nominee, there was a much larger than usual number of disaffected voters who didn’t like either Biden or Trump and just wanted someone anyone as an alternative. A theoretical no-name candidate as an alternative to Biden and Trump got about 10 percent in Ipsos polling conducted earlier this year.

Kennedy provided an alternative for a while. But when Harris stepped into the POTUS 2024 picture, that undermined his appeal at least among Democrats. “There were some wavering Democratic voters who just thought Biden was too old, or they didn’t like him, and Harris is just a more appealing candidate for those kinds of people,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

Kondik said it’s possible that Biden may have ended up winning back those voters anyway if he had stayed in the race and had a typical post-Democratic National Convention bumpBut at this point, Kondik said, he would not be surprised if the third-party vote share in the election ends up being about 2 percent of the electorate, as it was in 2012 and 2020. 

Before Harris became the nominee, political analysts were projecting that it would be closer to the nearly 6 percent share third parties got in 2016, which some analysts argued doomed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. “For all the talk about third parties in this election, a combination of the most prominent third-party candidate dropping out, in addition to the increased favor-ability of the two major party nominees, means that there’s just going to be less of a market for third party candidates,” he said.

Kennedy could make more of an impact as a surrogate for Trump. He could help the former president with certain demographics, such as young men who listen to prominent personalities such as Joe Rogan, who has praised KennedyBut the Trump campaign might also be wary of attaching itself to Kennedy’s brand: If the brain worm and the bear incident weren’t enough, he has been disavowed by members of his own famous family and now peddles conspiracy theories not just about the Covid-19 vaccine, but his father’s killer5G cell phone transmissionfraud in the 2004 election, and more. “The Democratic refrain against Trump and his running mate JD Vance is that they’re ‘weird,’” Kondik said. “Kennedy doesn’t make them less weird.” This from a person who supports boys bathrooms with Tampons, Abortions until 9 months, Drag Queen reading hour with Elementary kids... 

Weird? Because they're loving husband, fathers, and want to make this country the best it can be. Weird because Trump, Vance, and RFK Jr love our country and want to help our Citizens and not illegal criminals. 

Yeah we should be as weird as Trump, Vance, RFK Jr... We need more weird people like that and less brain dead morons like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Barrack & Mike Obama, Bill & The She devil known as Hillary Clinton. Oh and rest of the liberal tards in Congress, Senate and voting class.

Robert De Niro proves he's a crybaby liar


As you can see this guy has lost his mind! Now who really is Robert De Niro you ask? Well he's a liberal leftist crybaby loser... But Robert Anthony De Niro (born August 17, 1943) was an American actor and film producer. Now he will forever be known as the man who had a panic attack trying to act tough in the media talking smack about Donald Trump and accusing Trump of being the bully! When it's been Robert who's been relentless trashing Trump at all cost! But if Trump says anything back both the crooked and corrupt media gives a spin and try's to make it like Donald is the badguy when it was Robert depends wearing loser De Niro.


The ones actor best known for his collaborations with Martin Scorsese, was at some point before he came down with that terminal illness known as TDS as a talented actor and perhaps he should have stayed an actor and out of politics but oh well that ship has sailed.

De Niro is the recipient of various accolades, including two Academy Awards, a Golden Globe Award, the Cecil B. DeMille Award, and a Screen Actors Guild Life Achievement Award. He received the Kennedy Center Honors in 2009, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom from U.S. President Barack Obama in 2016. Which explains his hate for Donald Trump now doesn't it? Notice how all these people who attack Trump are connected to "Obama, Biden, Epstein, Diddy" and that escaped lunatic "Hillary Clinton" and her cheating hubby "Bill Clinton" or as we like to call him "The Stain Maker." Because yes there is the Rainmaker and then there was Bill Clinton.


So as if Donald Trump didn't have enough on his plate with these bogus cases from all these leftists gold diggers, nutjobs, conmen, liars, crooked Judges and the swamp from the legal system! But there is always more morons who still believe the lies coming out of the MSM like this dipshit Robert De Niro. This fool set an all time low for stupid actors.

This tops Johnny Depp asking what he did in 2015 and I don't know now who's got worst mental issues Joe Biden, Mark Hamill or Robert De Niro? But than it became clear this is all because of that Epstein / Diddy connection these people all share that Trump is against.

Remember folks TRUMP went and was the ONLY person who spoke out against Epstein in the mid 2000's when they were investigating Epstein for human trafficking and possibly more. But I do love when stupid people like Robert De Niro here gets off and starts throwing rocks at people like Trump.. Boy I sure do hope he don't have some nasty bones in that closet of his! But of course he do... Let's look at this flower child cry baby cupcake from Califonication. He's not a real New Yorker he's soft like a prostitute in San Francisco.


Legal issues

In February 1998, De Niro was held for questioning by French police in connection with an international prostitution ring. De Niro denied any involvement, and later filed a complaint against the examining magistrate for "violation of secrecy in an investigation". He stated he would not return to France, but has since traveled there several times including for the 2011 Cannes Film Festival.

In 1999, De Niro threatened to sue the owners of "De Niro's Supper Club" in Vancouver, under section 3 of the BC Privacy Act. The restaurant subsequently changed its name to "Section (3)".

In 2006, the trust that owns De Niro's Gardiner estate sued the town to have its property tax assessment reduced, arguing that $6 million was too high and should be compared only with similar properties in Ulster County, where Gardiner is located. The town, which had been comparing its value to similar estates in Dutchess County, across the Hudson River, and Connecticut's Litchfield County, where many other affluent New York residents maintain estates on large properties, won in State Supreme Court. In 2014, the trust's lawyers appealed the decision and the town was unsure if it should continue to defend the suit because of financial limitations (it would have earned far less in payments on the increased taxes than it had spent on legal costs). 

This angered many residents, who initially sympathized with De Niro, and some proposed to raise money privately to help the town continue the suit. The dispute was publicized by The New York Times. "When he (De Niro) read about it on Election Day, he went bananas," due to the negative publicity, said Gardiner town councilman Warren Wiegand. He was unaware that a lawsuit was filed; the trust's accountants took responsibility citing fiduciary duty. Shortly afterwards, De Niro directed his lawyer, Tom Harvey, to withdraw the suit and reimburse the town's legal bills of $129,000. Harvey conveyed to Wiegand that "De Niro didn't want to screw the town".

In August 2019, De Niro's company Canal Productions filed a $6-million lawsuit against former employee Graham Chase Robinson, for breaching her fiduciary duties and violating New York's faithless servant doctrine by misusing company funds and watching hours of Netflix during work hours. In October 2019, Robinson filed a lawsuit against De Niro, claiming harassment and gender discrimination. In November 2023 the jury found De Niro not personally liable for gender discrimination but his production company was ordered to pay her $1.2 million in damages.



Trump gets big 9-0 win in Colorado case!


After all the leftist b/s, fake news, lies and hype to push the latest agenda to throw Trump off the Colorado ballot finally gets it's resolution and well it turns into a big win at the Supreme Court in the 14th Amendment case for Donald Trump. 

The Supreme Court Monday ruled that former and soon to be again President Donald Trump could not be removed from the ballot in Colorado or any other state for that matter in a sweeping and historic 9-0 ruling that threw aside a lawsuit claiming that he disqualified himself from office because of his actions on January 6, 2021.


In a repudiation of the notion that Trump’s actions left him ineligible under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban,” a unanimous court ruled that an individual state could not dump the former president from the ballot.

Remember he has NOT been accused, taken to trial or convicted of an "insurrection" which once again shows at how low these people will go to cheat. The opinion reversed a stunning decision last year from Colorado’s top court that found Trump engaged in an insurrection because of his remarks outside the White House before the 2021 attack on the US Capitol. Those actions, the state court ruled, violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and left Trump ineligible to appear on the state’s ballot.

Since then, both Maine and Illinois also moved to take Trump off the ballot. Monday’s Supreme Court decision appeared certain to shut down those and other efforts to remove the frontrunner for the GOP nomination from the ballot. “States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office,” the court’s unsigned majority opinion read. “But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.”

There was no equivocation in the Supreme Court’s short opinion: States do not have the power to remove a federal candidate especially a president from the ballot under the Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.” It is Congress, the court wrote, that can enforce the provision, not states. “The notion that the Constitution grants the states freer rein than Congress to decide how Section 3 should be enforced with respect to federal officer is simply implausible,” the court’s unsigned opinion read.


What that means is that the impact of the decision will sweep far wider than the controversy at issue in Colorado. It means that any state would be overstepping its power by trying to knock Trump off the ballot a position that will almost certainly shut down similar “insurrectionist” lawsuits across the country. In that sense, the court’s opinion was a significant victory for Trump, vanquishing a legal theory that has for months threatened his viability for a second term.

The high court’s opinion went farther than shutting down state enforcement of the insurrectionist ban. It appeared to make it much harder for it to be enforced at the federal level as well. And that is where the unity on the court split apart, with four justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson asserting that their colleagues went too far. Barrett is a conservative Trump nominee and the other three are members of the liberal wing.

The court’s opinion, the three liberal justices wrote in a concurrence, “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement,” by requiring Congress to act to pass legislation first, something that’s highly unlikely. By doing so, the three wrote, “the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.” The move appeared to head off a concern that a narrow ruling from the court could lead to a messy confrontation in Congress when the electoral votes are counted in 2025. A group of legal experts feared an outcome that would leave unclear whether lawmakers opposed to Trump could attempt to disqualify him after the election.




The Supreme Court’s opinion doesn’t directly address whether Trump’s actions on January 6 qualified as an “insurrection” skirting an issue that the courts in Colorado wrestled with. The unsigned opinion noted that lower courts in Colorado found Trump’s remarks before the attack on the US Capitol qualified as engaging in an insurrection within the meaning of the Constitution. But the court’s unsigned opinion didn’t return to that judgment direction. That tracks with what experts had predicted would happen, that the justices would seek to decide the ballot case in a more narrow way without saying much of anything about Trump’s actions.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the liberal watchdog group that filed the suit, focused on the point in a statement after the decision. “While the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump back on the ballot on technical legal grounds, this was in no way a win for Trump,” Noah Bookbinder, the group’s president said. “The Supreme Court had the opportunity in this case to exonerate Trump, and they chose not to do so.”

Barrett devoted more than half of her one-page concurrence to urging the public to look past the fact that four of the court’s members herself included disagreed with how broadly their colleagues decided the case. The conservative justice stressed that although she and the three liberal justices were at odds with their other colleagues, “this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.” “The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up,” Barrett wrote and continued “For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.”

The Colorado dispute was one of several high-profile Trump-related cases before the court this term, and its inclusion on the court’s docket likely contributed to more lukewarm poll numbers for the justices. A poll taken last month around the time that the case was heard showed the public’s approval rating of the high court standing at just 40%. The court’s three liberals Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson sharply criticized the majority for the breadth of the opinion. The issue of Trump’s eligibility could have been decided simply, they said, by ruling that states can’t enforce the insurrectionist ban on their own.

“In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint,” they wrote, the court’s unsigned opinion, “abandons that course.” The three focused their ire on the fact that the majority opinion limited federal enforcement of the insurrection ban as well as state enforcement. That decision, they said, wasn’t before the Supreme Court in the case and would “insulate all alleged insurrectionists” from future challenges.

No justice signed their name to take responsibility for writing the opinion keeping Trump on the ballot. To begin with, the court handed down what’s known as a “per curiam” opinion, a Latin term that translates to “by the court.” Such opinions are relatively rare and are sometimes used to signal consensus even though they are not always unanimous. Per curium opinions are “unsigned,” which means that unlike most opinions, the public doesn’t know who wrote them and can’t always glean the vote count.

Per curiam opinions have faced criticism from some quarters for that very reason: They allow the court to resolve controversial issues without explicitly making clear their authorship. Among the most notable per curiam opinions in the court’s history was the Bush v. Gore decision, which effectively settled the 2000 election for President George W. Bush. Meanwhile, the “concurring” opinions at times looked likely sharply worded dissents. So despite the unity of the per curiam judgment there was considerable disagreement about some of the court’s reasoning.

Here’s what to know about the outcome and what it means bottom line is Trump will appear on ballots... Period!

Judge Tracie Porter to suppress votes in Illinois ?



Another swamp creature! So Cook County Judge Tracie Porter put her ruling on hold until Friday, expecting Trump’s lawyers to appeal. They did so hours after the decision was handed down. For now, nothing has changed at the ballot box. If Porter’s ruling does go into effect, she ordered that “any votes cast” for Trump “be suppressed.”

"suppressed" well this sounds like election rigging to me! What they scared off? Border safety, lower inflation, energy independence, gas prices lowering, better work numbers for the people who are here legally?

But she isn't assigned to something like this she was assigned as a Judge for "Minor traffic violations" so wait how did she get permission or power to do this?
She worked at the Clinton DOL while she was secretary.



BREAKING NEWS EX FBI Charles McGonigal colluded with RUSSIA!



BREAKING NEWS: The Former FBI official Charles McGonigal, who helped investigate Trump for 'colluding' with Russia, has been sentenced to four years in prison for colluding with Russia. LMAO!!!!

You read that right folks McGonigal accepted over $17,000 from Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska who he supplied information to. Deripaska is a close associate of Vladimir Putin and has a net worth of about $3 billion. "Charles McGonigal violated the trust his country placed in him by using his high-level position at the FBI to prepare for his future in business," said U.S. Attorney Damian Williams. "Once he left public service, he jeopardized our national security by providing services to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian tycoon who acts as Vladimir Putin’s agent."

They always accuse you of what they are doing... I know somewhere right now Donald Trump is laughing hard at this story. Well folks keep waiting the year is almost done and 2024 looks like politically is going to be lots of fun.

Trump's Deutsche Bank Witness DEMOLISHES Civil Fraud Trial

So it's clear TRUMP did nothing wrong as the testamony by the BANK on Tuesday... Well, Well. Looks like the entire case needs to be thrown out folks. This was not a legit case, and it's time the law takes it to Tish James, and the Judge Arthur F. Engoron and these two scumbag loser freak communists to be thrown in PRISON for trying to destroy an innocent man, and trying to destroy his image during an election run. This entire witch hunt towards TRUMP for no reason other than to help Joe "Pedo" Biden and his CRIMINAL Syndicate.

Watch the video and let the info sink in especially those leftist morons who might stumble apon this post and are reading this... PAY Attention you're being lied too by the evil left about Trump. He's the Victim here not the banks, not anyone person other than him, and his sons who are being thrown around by the courts with illegal cases just cause he's a real man who does what he says, and keeps his word, and does the right things. This is stuff the left hates. They lie, con people, and we the people need to ALL wake up! IF You're still so god damn stupid you think TRUMP is the badguy here you need to be slapped twice, and your parents twice.

Twice on you for being such a god damn idiot, and you're parents for giving birth to such idiots. I mean how did Tish James and Fake Judge Engermoron in NY figure this would even fly? This is hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

As stated in the videos comments section on YouTube by
@PepeCabreraKC "The fact that the prosecution is holding on to this case is evidence that they don’t care about justice." They don't care all they want is to destroy our country, spend us into total 3rd world banana republic, and make us pay for it with higher taxes, inflation, and making this country's money go to Ukraine and other countries to feed fake wars. This is the Military industrial complex & the UN hard at work helping to take us down. This is part of their "GREAT RESET" which is to turn the world into a giant banana republic, and communist rule.

This is exactly why we cannot listen or vote Blue demoncraps anymore, and need to not vote RINO RED either... These two factions are in league and hate our country, and our rules of law, constitution and freedoms. 

Oh and to the people like black people, gay people and others who are brain washed into thinking this country is so bad? GO live somewhere else... I bet you will love communist CHINA or other Arabian countries where they cut gay peoples heads off just for being gay.

WE don't do that here cause we are not insane with our great constitution all man is equal in this country. This is why the rest of these rogue evil places hate us so much. Because this good old USA is just better period, and this is why people like TISH and her fat ass needs to be sent to prison with Judge Engermoron and his sidekick GF that other fat slob sitting next to him.

President Trump Visits the Border - 11/19/23



President Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott greet and serve meals to Texas National Guard soldiers, Texas Department of Public Safety troopers, and other service members stationed at the border over Thanksgiving. Following the meet and greet with border workers, President Trump and Gov. Abbott will give remarks at the South Texas International Airport in Edinburg, Texas.

RSBN will be LIVE with full coverage on Sunday, Nov. 19, at 12:00 p.m. ET.

LIVE: President Trump speaks at a campaign event in Claremont, N.H. - 11/11/23


After a great rally in Hialeah Florida now during Veterans day POTUS 45 soon to be POTUS 47 he's now at Claremont, N.H. starting at 2pm est.


President Trump will deliver remarks in Claremont, New Hampshire, on Saturday, Nov. 11, 2023. The event held on Veterans Day will take place at Stevens High School. RSBN will be LIVE at 12 pm ET before President Trump takes the stage at 2 pm ET.



Stay up to date on Right Side Broadcasting Network coverage, go to rsbnetwork.com/newsletter or download our new mobile app to get notifications for important events!

Tucker Carlson Tonight 11/9/23


This is pure complete insanity, and proof that we don't live in a free country anymore..... We're in a real Police State.
This is unbelievable when someonen had been arrested for posting a JOKE about Hillary Clinton in 2016, around time for the presidential election. Mind you he didn't get arrested until after JOE BIDEN became President. The FBI, and cops showed up at arrested this man for simple re-posting a meme and mocking Hillary. Folks you won't believe this! 

Ep. 38 The First Amendment is done. Douglass Mackey is about to go to prison for mocking Hillary Clinton on the internet. We talked to him right before his sentencing. Remember as you watch that this could be you.



Someone, PLEASE, tell me we are free.... Do we really live in a Communist country? Or are we free? You decide.


The nastiest woman to live on this planet someone who might have gotten away with how many people getting murdered, how many HUMAN including CHILD TRAFFICKING, CHEATING, AND... YOU NAME IT...... But an innocent person goes to jail and experience a destroyed life, for doing NOTHING WRONG, except laughing at Hillary Clinton!

Mike Johnson On Biden's Impeachment Inquiry Live


Finally it looks like the search for the truth against Joe Biden is being exposed! Mike Johnson is live talking on this right in the video below... This is Live!



Donald J. Trump to Hold rally in Hialeah, Fl - 11/08/2023


My President and your president oh and the nations 45th President of the United States Donald J. Trump will be in my backyard soon! Well sort off... He's set to Hold a Rally in Hialeah, Florida on Wed, November 08, 2023 at 07:00 pm (US/Eastern) the doors Open at 02:00 pm and the rally will be held at the "Ted Hendricks Stadium" at Henry Milander Park the direct address is 4800 Palm Avenue Hialeah, FL 33012



I'm going to try and make it out as it's a "FREE EVENT" if I can make it out I'll try and video out some of it... Having car issues these days so I'll see if I can get someone to go with me. But either way it's going to be like most his Rally's packed with people and tons of fun.





LIVE: President Donald J. Trump Iowa - 10/29/23


LIVE: President Donald J. Trump to Deliver Remarks in Sioux City, Iowa - 10/29/23 and below is the video directly from RSBN which is a great conservative news outlet which doesn't censor TRUMP or the conservatives in the country like how it's done by the left driven mainstream outlets like "CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and yes for some part FOX News." Let's see what he says about MAGA Mike Johnson also taking the speaker of the house job. We here were pulling for Jim Jordan but Mike Johnson is a good option and much better than Kevin McCarthy who thanked Nancy Pelosi and she said she would help him out when needed. So he was without a doubt on her side.



President Donald J Trump makes his 12th visit to Iowa this year ahead of the January 15th Caucus. The president is scheduled to speak at 4 p.m. ET.

The broadcast is expected to begin at 12:00 p.m. ET.
Please note: the start time is subject to change as the event timeline is updated.

Like always our President will address the things we need done here in the country, and we hope he is able to speak on these fake charges and indictments against him without getting himself fined again.

Donald J. Trump Fills docs to have DC interference case quashed!



POTUS 45 Donald J Trump was charged in August under a four-count, 45-page (45 Pages 45 President! Coincidance?) Indictment that accuses him of conspiring to defraud the U.S. by preventing Congress from certifying Democrat President Joe Biden's so called victory and to deprive voters of their right to a fair election. Which is actually what Biden did in actuality as well rational people know by now. So the Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith is leading the prosecution team. "The core conduct alleged in the indictment relating to the presentation of alternate electors had a historical basis that dates back to 1800 and spans at least seven other elections," now Trump is seeking to have his Washington, D.C. election interference case quashed, calling it a "vindictive prosecution." Much of his submission, filed early on Tuesday, hangs on whether alternative electors are a criminal conspiracy or a symbolic act of defiance that is rooted in American history. Trump arrives to Trump Tower on October 23, 2023 in New York City. He is now seeking to have his federal indictment quashed, based on historical precedent. Much of his submission, filed again Tuesday.



"There are no other prosecutions in American history relating to these types of activities. The allegations in the indictment involve constitutionally authorized activities by President Trump as Commander in Chief, as well as speech and expressive conduct by the First Amendment." and it gies ib tge say that "Given this context, it is no surprise that in the months following the 2020 election, senior government officials rejected an investigation of President Trump as unfounded and potentially unconstitutional," the filing stated.



Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to Trump Tower on October 23, 2023 in New York City. He is now seeking to have his federal indictment quashed, based on historical precedent. Donald Trump is seeking to have his Washington, D.C. election interference case quashed, calling it a "vindictive prosecution." Much of his submission, filed early on Tuesday, hangs on whether alternative electors are a criminal conspiracy or a symbolic act of defiance that is rooted in American history.



Trump was charged in August under a four-count, 45-page indictment that accuses him of conspiring to defraud the U.S. by preventing Congress from certifying Democrat President Joe Biden's victory and to deprive voters of their right to a fair election. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith is leading the prosecution team.



"The core conduct alleged in the indictment relating to the presentation of alternate electors had a historical basis that dates back to 1800 and spans at least seven other elections," Trump's application to quash the charges stated. "There are no other prosecutions in American history relating to these types of activities. The allegations in the indictment involve constitutionally authorized activities by President Trump as Commander in Chief, as well as speech and expressive conduct by the First Amendment."



"Given this context, it is no surprise that in the months following the 2020 election, senior government officials rejected an investigation of President Trump as unfounded and potentially unconstitutional," the filing stated. "Expressive conduct" in First Amendment law has long been used to protect non-verbal free speech, such as an anti-war student wearing a black armband to school or Jehovah Witness children refusing to salute the American flag in class.



Trump is now saying that the alternate electors who signed off a Trump victory across the U.S. were engaged in symbolic free speech to show their disapproval of Biden and the way that the election was run. Edward B. Foley, a constitutional law professor at Ohio State University, said that there is a long history of alternate electors in American politics that stretches back hundreds of years. Writing for the policy think tank, Just Security, Foley said that Trump supporters signing off on his supposed victory in seven battleground states was "a fool's errand, since there never was a chance that Congress was going to recognize Trump as the winner." Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to Trump Tower on October 23, 2023 in New York City. He is now seeking to have his federal indictment quashed, based on historical precedent.



Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to Trump Tower on October 23, 2023 in New York City. He is now seeking to have his federal indictment quashed, based on historical precedent.
Trump is seeking to have his Washington, D.C. election interference case quashed, calling it a "vindictive prosecution." Much of his submission, filed early on Tuesday, hangs on whether alternative electors are a criminal conspiracy or a symbolic act of defiance that is rooted in American history. Trump was charged in August under a four-count, 45-page indictment that accuses him of conspiring to defraud the U.S. by preventing Congress from certifying Democrat President Joe Biden's victory and to deprive voters of their right to a fair election. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith is leading the prosecution team.



"The core conduct alleged in the indictment relating to the presentation of alternate electors had a historical basis that dates back to 1800 and spans at least seven other elections," Trump's application to quash the charges stated. "There are no other prosecutions in American history relating to these types of activities. The allegations in the indictment involve constitutionally authorized activities by President Trump as Commander in Chief, as well as speech and expressive conduct by the First Amendment."



"Given this context, it is no surprise that in the months following the 2020 election, senior government officials rejected an investigation of President Trump as unfounded and potentially unconstitutional," the filing stated. "Expressive conduct" in First Amendment law has long been used to protect non-verbal free speech, such as an anti-war student wearing a black armband to school or Jehovah Witness children refusing to salute the American flag in class.

Trump is now saying that the alternate electors who signed off a Trump victory across the U.S. were engaged in symbolic free speech to show their disapproval of Biden and the way that the election was run. Edward B. Foley, a constitutional law professor at Ohio State University, said that there is a long history of alternate electors in American politics that stretches back hundreds of years. Writing for the policy think tank, Just Security, Foley said that Trump supporters signing off on his supposed victory in seven battleground states was "a fool's errand, since there never was a chance that Congress was going to recognize Trump as the winner."



As Foley points out, Trump's Vice President, Mike Pence, acting as Senate president, would not even open the envelope that contained the confirmation from the alternative electors. "Mike Pence, as Senate president, would not even let these pro-Trump submissions be opened in the joint session of Congress because, without any claim of any backing from any part of their state's government, they could not be acknowledged as even asserting to be official electoral votes entitled to be considered by Congress," Foley wrote.



So was the action of Trump's supporters merely symbolic free speech and is there, as his lawyers claimed in their submissions, a long historic precedent? Foley notes that Florida was hotly contested in the 1876 election between Republican candidate, Rutherford Hayes, and Democrat, Samuel Tilden. Florida's attorney general, a Democrat, purported to certify Tilden the winner of the state. On the same day, however, Republican electors in Florida voted for Hayes, backed by a certification from the state's canvassing board.



Later, Florida's judiciary and legislature would act to undo the canvassing board's certification. There were no indictments of any of those involved as it was considered a legal dispute. "In South Carolina, by contrast, there was no one with any colorable claim of official authority in a position to certify Tilden the winner. Still, Democrats there were claiming that he had won" and still "submitted their spurious electoral votes to the Senate president". "None of these South Carolina individuals (as far as I know from my research) were criminally investigated or prosecuted for making this assertion," Foley wrote, noting that a similar dispute occurred in Vermont in 1876.



Other disputes occurred throughout American history, such as both sides claiming to sign off on the winning candidate in Hawaii in the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Foley said that such acts, done by both Democrats and Republicans, are distinct from cases of forgery, which have occurred in elections in the past. "Openly asserting that one is the duly appointed elector of state, even when that claim is utterly without merit[...]is to make an argument about one's status under the law. It is not an attempt to dupe recipients with counterfeit papers," he writes. Judging from Tuesday's court submissions, that is the logic that will get Trump and his co-accused released from the election interference charges.