The Lesson of the Trump Conviction
Last week, Donald Trump was convicted of falsifying business records with the intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime. The Manhattan jury found him guilty on all thirty-four counts.
This entire case was always ridiculous. Trump was charged for labeling reimbursement checks to his lawyer as “legal expenses” after the lawyer made a (completely legal) payment to an adult film actress to get her to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Prosecutors argued that the reimbursement payments—which were paid in 2017, after Trump had won the election—were actually campaign expenditures because keeping the alleged affair quiet may have helped the Trump campaign.
The idea that hush-money payments made by political candidates are only legitimate if they use campaign funds and publicly report the payments is absurd. And it’s unprecedented too. In fact, federal campaign law is rather strict in the other direction—limiting candidates from spending campaign funds on everything but the most clear-cut campaign expenses like rent for a campaign office or TV commercials.
But still, to turn charges of falsifying business records from misdemeanors into felonies, the New York State prosecutors had to show that Trump mislabeled the records in order to commit, aid, or conceal another crime. Alvin Bragg, the New York State district attorney, argued that this other crime was a violation of federal election law. But, as William Anderson explained last week, Trump has never been charged for this alleged violation of federal law. And even if Bragg thinks he should be, that determination cannot be made in a state court.
Bragg later changed the secondary election violation to claim Trump broke an obscure New York election law that made it a misdemeanor to engage in an election conspiracy, defined as, “Conspiracy to promote or prevent election: Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” Again, the jury decided that alleged misdemeanors that Trump committed in 2017 were done to unlawfully promote an election he had already won the year before.
Adding to the absurdity, just before deliberations began, the trial judge told the jury that they did not need to agree that Trump had violated that specific election law. He listed an additional violation of tax laws and further falsifying business records that could have resulted from the initial mislabeled payments as possible other crimes. According to the judge, the jury did not have to agree on what Trump specifically did. As long as everyone on the jury believed that he had committed any of these three crimes—none of which he has or is being charged with—they should find him guilty. And they did. So much for the presumption of innocence.
So, to review, Trump was convicted for mislabeling reimbursement checks to his lawyer as legal expenses when prosecutors say they should have been tagged as campaign expenditures. To turn the charges into felonies, prosecutors further asserted that by mislabeling these checks, Trump had violated federal election law because the payments may have impacted the 2016 election—even though the payments in question were made after the election was over. And finally, the judge instructed the jury that they did not even need to agree that Trump had violated federal election law but could each pick and choose from a number of possible crimes that Trump has never been charged with, and still reach a unanimous guilty verdict.
It’s important to understand how convoluted and ridiculous this case against Trump was because it reveals what’s really going on here. It’s not as if the almost 230-year norm of not bringing criminal charges against former presidents was shattered because Trump did something so egregious that prosecutors had no choice but to charge him.
Instead, Trump’s opponents spent years searching for anything they could charge Trump with in an effort to drive him out of political life. This case was just enough that, when cobbled together and presented to a jury in one of the most anti-Trump areas in the country, it got the political class the conviction they’ve wanted ever since Trump won the presidency.
Those of us who understand the serious political and economic changes required to address our country’s many problems need to learn the lesson of the Trump conviction. The political class will not roll over and let its power slip away just because we elect a few antiestablishment politicians.
As Murray Rothbard laid out in detail toward the end of his life, a widespread, enthusiastic, bottom-up movement is a necessary precondition if we’re ever going to see federal power rolled back. The political class is set on destroying Trump, not because of the policies he enacted while in office but because of the antiestablishment ideas he has helped stoke on the American right. The intensity of their reaction reveals how vulnerable they feel to such ideas. But the conviction of Donald Trump on such trivial and absurd charges also makes it clear that those in power will use whatever they can to stay there.
POWERFUL — MUST WATCH: The Globalist System Is Collapsing In Real Time, Warns Bilderberg Expert Daniel Estulin
Sick! Oregon Police Tell Father It’s Legal For Grown Man To Expose Himself To 2-Year-Old Son
A furious father filmed as he spoke with a Bend, Oregon, police officer about an incident where the dad said a nude man walked onto his property and tried interacting with the resident’s two-year-old son.
The man asked the cop to verify on camera that law enforcement could take no action against a “completely bare naked” man talking to a baby.
SICK: Police officer in Bend, Oregon tells man it’s not a crime for people to expose themselves to his children pic.twitter.com/ghVPgTZkrZ
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 5, 2024
The officer confirmed that public nudity, even in front of children, is legal in Oregon and said the only thing he could charge the suspect with is trespassing for allegedly entering the man’s yard to talk with the boy.
Speaking to the camera, the man said, “So, a naked person came up onto my property here, approached my two-year-old kid completely naked. I ran over to him and covered his eyes so he wouldn’t see.”
“At what point did this become a normal and acceptable thing to do? The cops will literally do nothing about it,” he added.
The video highlights how Blue cities and states are destroying America and allowing criminality to run rampant.
Unsuccessful DEI Efforts Meet Legislative Opposition in Tennessee
The Tennessee Board of Regents (TBOR) promoted an initiative in 2023 which was meant to better ensure that black males in the state have greater access to higher education, and the support needed to graduate in higher numbers. TBOR referenced a graduation rate which is at least 20 percent lower than the graduation rate of other students. A plan to fight this undesirable metric was implemented by the Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC) in part through the Black Male Success Initiative (BMSI).
Assumedly some members of the commission supported this plan out of good intentions, more specifically, a desire to use the state to benefit the marginalized. Unfortunately, this is not the whole picture. In 2015, the TBOR implemented a 10 year strategic plan, which as of now has been less than a success. In politics, government boards and agencies must prove their necessity to continue receiving funding. This can lead to politicians and regulators creating or pointing to problems which only they can solve. The strategic plan greatly emphasized the need for 55 percent of adult Tennesseans to receive a post-secondary credential by 2025. The results as of 2023 are not ideal.
Enrollment since 2015 is down over 3.5 percent, first-time freshmen numbers are down almost 28 percent, with adult learners down 21 percent. Overall completion and retention rates are mixed, seeing a slight uptick. The only group with major progression is those who are participating in post-secondary programs while incarcerated, but this category of student only makes up about 0.5 percent of all enrolled, thus not significant. The most potentially damning statistic is the fact that the board has not hit its overall completion rate goal since 2018, with the number of graduates increasing only around 7.5 percent from 2015. When combining all nine years measured so far, the board is still over five percent behind its target.
It was obvious by 2021 that not all the goals set were going to be met unless there were specific changes made. The board then resorted to targeting a group of Tennesseans which have traditionally completed post-secondary studies at a lower rate when compared to other students. The TBOR explains in its findings that black male student enrollment and retainment numbers have decreased every year, necessitating its focus on this demographic. Rather than considering that young people around the country have begun to question the value of post-secondary education, these all-knowing committee members have predictably resorted to blaming race disparities and questioning the capabilities of black students.
The TBOR has pointed to a range of factors which it perceives to be the cause of this disparity. Some of these factors seem to be part of the story, while others are clearly nonsensical. One such example is a lack of “Institutional Fit and Belonging,” explaining that many black male students simply do not feel as though they belong at institutions of higher education. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 addressed discrimination at institutions of education, and any special attempts to make certain groups feel more welcome have the danger of discriminating against other groups. The idea that a black male student needs to feel welcome, or belong to succeed academically is put to rest when considering just how well immigrant students do in higher education settings. Leaving everything they know, often coming from a non-ideal financial situation, and not seeing leadership who look like them, students holding a F-1 visa regularly outperform their peers.
After the board determined which factors restricted black male enrollment and success in post-secondary education, it created an action plan. The primary actionable goal of the BMSI is to identify successful practices and create a state-wide strategy. There are a couple of underlying issues with this initiative. The findings of the board showed that one factor to black males under-performing is that so few members of faculty and the community look like them, potentially necessitating the hiring or accepting of staff and students based primarily on race. Most Americans oppose college administrators allowing racial preference to impact the admissions process. Additionally, Tennessee HB 1376, passed in July of 2023, prohibited college administrators from undermining the principles of merit and excellence in admissions, and also emphasized intellectual diversity over ethnic diversity.
The plan implemented by the TBOR not only had the strong potential to violate HB 1376, but also runs into conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, where the 6-3 ruling greatly limited race as a determining factor in admissions. The TBOR must come to terms with such legislation while it attempts to prove itself relevant by meeting the goals of its strategic plan. One hopes the board members will consider the value of individualism over collectivism in higher education while they are at it.
POWERFUL — MUST WATCH: The Globalist System Is Collapsing In Real Time, Warns Bilderberg Expert Daniel Estulin
The Questions They Should Have Asked Fauci
To much excitement surrounds the questioning of Dr. Anthony Fauci under oath about the Covid pandemic response. Again. And he evades, and prevaricates, and avoids taking responsibility. Again.
And, once again, nobody asks the crucial questions.
When Fauci, former head of NIAID and the public face of the US government’s Covid pandemic response, says the 6-feet social distancing rule “just sort of appeared” — doesn’t anybody wonder: WHERE DID IT APPEAR FROM?
When Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the NIH, who according to its website “spearheaded the NIH’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” says about the 6-feet social distancing rule, “I did not see evidence, but I’m not sure I would have been shown evidence at that point” — doesn’t anybody wonder: WHY WAS THE SPEARHEAD OF THE RESPONSE NOT SHOWN THE EVIDENCE? AND WHO WAS NOT SHOWING IT TO HIM?
These are just two examples of how government committees of “investigators,” when questioning the “leaders” of the Covid pandemic response, skip right over the most relevant issues.
The National Security Council Was in Charge of Pandemic Policy
In fact, we know from the official US government pandemic planning documents that the pandemic response policy was actually not set by these public health figures at all. It was determined by the National Security Council — the advisory board to the President of the United States on matters of national security. Not a public health board. A group of military and intelligence people who advise about war and terrorism. They were in charge.
So to answer the unasked question: Where did the 6-feet distancing rule “appear” from? It was determined by the group in charge of pandemic response policy — the National Security Council.
Was it based on public health or science? No. It was based on the NSC’s lockdown-until-vaccine policy. It was meant to keep everyone terrified and everything shut down until the application of the miraculous mRNA countermeasures.
Why was Francis Collins “not shown evidence at that point?”
Because officially as of March 19, 2020, nobody in the public health departments of the government was in charge of anything related to the pandemic response.
Starting on that date [or a day earlier, according to other documents], as noted in its January 2021 “Initial Assessment Report,” FEMA assumed the lead for the federal response to the pandemic.
The role was unannounced, unprecedented, and (I believe) illegal. It removed HHS, the public health umbrella agency, which was designated as Lead Federal Agency (LFA) for pandemic response in every document, exercise, and directive leading up to Covid, and replaced it with FEMA — effectively placing the pandemic response under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security, which is the parent agency of FEMA.
By law, the Secretary of HHS is supposed to lead “all Federal public health and medical response to public health emergencies:”
But regardless of the legality of replacing HHS with FEMA, by March 19, 2020 — NOBODY IN ANY PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY WAS IN CHARGE OF ANYTHING related to the Covid pandemic response. The National Security Council was in charge of policy. And FEMA/DHS was in charge of everything else.
All the heads of all the public health agencies who were on TV 24/7 telling everyone about the 6-fEEt distancing, the masking, the testing, the quarantining: EVERYTHING THEY SAID was not based on any science or public health policy.
So if the US House Committee on Oversight and Accountability wants to oversee or demand accountability for the catastrophic Covid pandemic response — the first question that must be asked is: WHO WAS ACTUALLY IN CHARGE?
POWERFUL — MUST WATCH: The Globalist System Is Collapsing In Real Time, Warns Bilderberg Expert Daniel Estulin
Man, Democrat Mom Receive Death Threats After Fauci Mocked During Hearing
A man who went viral after hilariously mocking former NIAID Director Anthony Fauci during congressional testimony this week has received death threats, with violent agitators also threatening to kill his mother inside the nursing home where she resides.
Political activist Brandon Fellows was seen making sad faces while seated behind Fauci during a House Select Subcommittee hearing on Monday.
Legend Identified…
— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) June 3, 2024
The man behind Fauci Trolling him with Sad Faces is named Brendon Fellows, a J6’er who was Sentenced to Three Years in Prison
His face will live on in the Halls of Meme Fame Forever. ? ?https://t.co/mBFr7meh6F pic.twitter.com/QhJtM5ON4k
Fellows, who was recently released on May 20 after serving three years in prison for smoking marijuana inside the office of Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) during the Jan. 6 protest, reported he and his elderly mother have been receiving threats following his stunt.
“Mother had death threats and had her nursing home [threatened] to be attacked/ the residents inside who have nothing to do with this…” Fellows posted to X on Tuesday, adding, “BTW, mom is a democrat…”
Mother had death threats and had her nursing home threated to be attacked/ the residents inside who have nothing to do with this… BTW, mom is a democrat…
— Brandon Fellows (@BrandonF65664) June 4, 2024
I’ve received messages of threats and death threats as she has.
She wants me to be silent,
I will not.
Trump 2024
“I’ve received messages of threats and death threats as she has. She wants me to be silent, I will not. Trump 2024.”
Earlier in the week, Fellows had remarked Dems were “hilariously freaking out” he was able to get “so close to mass murderer” Fauci.
For every democrat hilariously freaking out that I was sitting so close to mass murderer Fauchi… Yes I’m a felon, but only until the Supreme Court dismissed the felony later this month. Look up the opening statements of USA V Fisher… My supervised release is about to end.
— Brandon Fellows (@BrandonF65664) June 3, 2024
In another update, Fellows wrote his probation officer didn’t give credence to his charges and found the Fauci stunt funny.
I have the coolest and most chill probation officer!
— Brandon Fellows (@BrandonF65664) June 4, 2024
We had scheduled a meet up a week ago, met for the first time today.
Libs, your efforts didn’t work. They recognize I did nothing wrong and though he probably wouldn’t admit it, I caught him smiling at the Fauchi video?
The sudden impulse toward violence over an otherwise innocuous gesture perfectly encapsulates the left’s moral bankruptcy and depth of depravity.
Hunter Biden’s Laptop NOT Tampered With, Says FBI Witness
Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop was not tampered with in any way, an FBI witness told the jury in Hunter’s gun trial on Wednesday.
When asked if she’d seen any evidence of tampering of data from Hunter’s laptop, FBI agent Erika Jensen, a witness for Special Counsel David Weiss’ team, replied, “No.”
Hunter’s attorney Abbe Lowell then asked Jensen during cross examination, “Did you find out if any of the files had been tampered with?”
“I did not,” Jensen replied.
The testimony debunks repeated claims by Hunter’s associates and lawyers that his laptop was subject to “manipulation” and “hacking.”
Hunter’s lawyers last month had claimed they would dispute the authenticity of the laptop if the DOJ moved to submit it into evidence.
“Defense counsel has numerous reasons to believe the data had been altered and compromised before investigators obtained the electronic material,” his lawyers wrote.
But Weiss shot down Hunter’s defense team’s argument before submitting the laptop into evidence, confirming that it was indeed authentic.
“He has not shown any of the actual evidence in this case is unreliable or inauthentic, because there is none,” Weiss’ team wrote. “Instead, the defendant’s theory about the laptop is a conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence.”
The DOJ confirmed the authenticity of Hunter’s laptop in a January court filing, and that Apple produced backups of data from several of Hunter’s electronic devices that he had backed up to his iCloud account.
The New York Post first broke the story about Hunter’s laptop in October 2020, which was met with vehement pushback by the Biden team, mainstream media, and former intelligence officials who called it “Russian disinformation.”
Two years later, CNN, The New York Times and other corporate outlets finally acknowledged Hunter’s laptop was authentic.
Hunter is on trial in Delaware over three felony charges related to his efforts to obtain a firearm in 2018 while addicted to drugs.