TRUMP: ‘Generous’ Second Round of Stimulus Checks For the American People on the Way

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday said he supports the idea of giving Americans another round of stimulus checks to help bolster the economy and get those impacted by the Coronavirus back on their feet.

In an interview with Scripps Networks, the president said he would approve sending Americans a second check and hinted that the payments may arrive sooner rather than later.

“We had this going better than anybody’s ever seen before, Trump said. “We had the best job numbers, the best economics, the best economy we’ve ever had, and then we had the virus come in from China. Now we’re rebuilding it again. We will be doing another stimulus package. It’ll be very good, it’ll be very generous.”

When asked when the next set of checks may be approved, the president replied, “Over the next couple of weeks probably.”

A bipartisan bill in Congress authorized payments of up to $1,200 each to millions of Americans, with additional payments of $500 per child, in legislation that Trump signed into law in March.

Since then another $3 trillion bill that passed the House of Representatives on May 15 authorized a second round of economic stimulus payments of up to $6,000 per U.S. household.

Lawmakers are not expected to vote on another Coronavirus bill until sometime in July.

SWINGING BACK: Trump Vows To Appoint New Conservative Justices in Wake of Recent SCOTUS Rulings

WASHINGTON — Shaken by a series of recent Supreme Court rulings, President Donald Trump has turned his attention toward appointing fresh conservative nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Based on decisions being rendered now, this list is more important than ever before,” the president, wrote in a Twitter post.

Blasting the Supreme Court’s recent decision that gay and transgender workers are protected under federal employment law and a second blocking his request to end DACA, the president said more conservative Justices are needed in order to protect the constitution, specifically, he said, the Second Amendment.

“We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else” he wrote. “These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives.”

“If given the opportunity, I will only choose from this list, as in the past, a Conservative Supreme Court Justice,” he continued. “Based on decisions being rendered now, this list is more important than ever before (Second Amendment, Right to Life, Religous Liberty, etc.) – VOTE 2020!”

So far in his administration, President Trump has made two appointments to the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. In Thursday’s ruling, both Justices sided with him in their ruling.

SWINGING BACK: Trump Vows To Appoint New Conservative Judges in Wake of Recent SCOTUS Rulings

WASHINGTON — Shaken by a series of recent Supreme Court rulings, President Donald Trump has turned his attention toward appointing fresh conservative nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Based on decisions being rendered now, this list is more important than ever before,” the president, wrote in a Twitter post.

Blasting the Supreme Court’s recent decision that gay and transgender workers are protected under federal employment law and a second blocking his request to end DACA, the president said more conservative Justices are needed in order to protect the constitution, specifically, he said, the Second Amendment.

“We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else” he wrote. “These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives.”

“If given the opportunity, I will only choose from this list, as in the past, a Conservative Supreme Court Justice,” he continued. “Based on decisions being rendered now, this list is more important than ever before (Second Amendment, Right to Life, Religous Liberty, etc.) – VOTE 2020!”

So far in his administration, President Trump has made two appointments to the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. In Thursday’s ruling, both Justices sided with him in their ruling.

DACA SHOWDOWN: Clarence Thomas Slams SCOTUS Over Anti-Trump Ruling

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Thursday scolded his fellow Supreme Court Justices over its controversial ruling on DACA.

In a 5-4 decision earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled to block President Donald Trump’s request to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama era program which prevents young people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children from being deported for a set period of time.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion, said the court took issue with the Trump administration’s reasoning for eliminating the program and ultimately determined that the Department of Homeland Security did not follow proper procedure in its decision to end the program and that the department did not have the authority to do so.

In his dissent, Roberts strongly disagreed.

“Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision,” Thomas wrote. “The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.”

Thomas then slammed his colleagues for giving the “green light for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong — the political branches.”

“The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope. The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end,” Thomas wrote, adding, “The majority’s opinion supports the idea that a president is “not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.”

WIN FOR LIFE: Alabama Governor signs bill to ban abortion into law

MONTGOMERY, Al. (Al.com) —

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey has signed the bill to make abortion a felony in Alabama, the governor’s office announced.

“To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God,” Ivey said in a press release.

The Senate gave final passage to the bill on Tuesday night, sending it to Ivey’s desk.

The bill says it will take effect in six months. But the sponsors said their intent was to trigger litigation that could lead to a challenge of Roe v. Wade at the U.S. Supreme Court.

ACLU of Alabama and Planned Parenthood have said they would sue to block the law.

Here is Ivey’s full statement:

“Today, I signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, a bill that was approved by overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the Legislature. To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.

“To all Alabamians, I assure you that we will continue to follow the rule of law.

“In all meaningful respects, this bill closely resembles an abortion ban that has been a part of Alabama law for well over 100 years. As today’s bill itself recognizes, that longstanding abortion law has been rendered “unenforceable as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

“No matter one’s personal view on abortion, we can all recognize that, at least for the short term, this bill may similarly be unenforceable. As citizens of this great country, we must always respect the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court even when we disagree with their decisions. Many Americans, myself included, disagreed when Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. The sponsors of this bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur.

“I want to commend the bill sponsors, Rep. Terri Collins and Sen. Clyde Chambliss, for their strong leadership on this important issue.

“For the remainder of this session, I now urge all members of the Alabama Legislature to continue seeking the best ways possible to foster a better Alabama in all regards, from education to public safety. We must give every person the best chance for a quality life and a promising future.”

The Republican majority in the House and Senate passed the bill over opposition from Democrats. The law makes it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion. The woman would not be criminally liable. The law includes an exception to allow abortions in cases of serious health risks to the woman.

In recent days, Ivey had said she would wait to see the final version of the bill before deciding to sign it.

The bill does not include an exception to allow abortions for victims of rape and incest.

Randall Marshall, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama, issued this statement:

“By signing this bill, the governor and her colleagues in the state legislature have decided to waste millions in Alabama taxpayer dollars in order to defend a bill that is simply a political effort to overturn 46 years of precedent that has followed the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. We will not allow that to happen, and we will see them in court. Despite the governor signing this bill, clinics will remain open, and abortion is still a safe, legal medical procedure at all clinics in Alabama.”

Staci Fox, president and CEO at Planned Parenthood Southeast, also issued a statement:

“We vowed to fight this dangerous abortion ban every step of the way and we meant what we said. We haven’t lost a case in Alabama yet and we don’t plan to start now. We will see Governor Ivey in court. In the meantime, abortion is still safe, legal, and available in the state of Alabama and we plan to keep it that way.”

 

—–

Mike Cason of Al.com contributed to the contents of this report.

abortion

 

IRONY ALERT: Judge who wrote the book on corruption indicted on fraud charges

Charleston, WV (Law & Crime) — West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Allen Loughry, who authored a book on political corruption in his home state, was indicted on 22 federal charges, ranging from fraud to witness tampering, for alleged corruption of his own.

According to the indictment, Loughry fraudulently used a government-issued credit card for personal use, took a historic Supreme Court desk back to his house for use in a “home office,” and then lied about it to cover it up. Prosecutors says the Justice Loughry falsified the mileage on trips he took in a Supreme Court car, for which he used a government card for payment. They also say he claimed to use government vehicles for business when he was really using them–and credit cards– for personal use. He also allegedly lied to fellow Supreme Court Justices about it.

The indictment says that when confronted with allegations, Loughry lied about his actions and tried to accuse others of fraud. On top of that, he allegedly tried to influence the testimony of a Supreme Court employee before a grand jury inquired about court expenditures after a news report came out that looked into the cost of his office renovations.

Loughry is now facing charges including wire fraud, making false statements, witness tampering, and mail fraud. In 2006, when he was a law clerk, Loughry published a book, titled, Don’t Buy Another Vote, I Won’t Pay for a Landslide: The Sordid and Continuing History of Political Corruption in West Virginia. The indictment points this out, and also notes that Loughry’s Supreme Court bio mentions the book and that he is a frequent speaker on issues including government, politics, and ethics reform.

The Supreme Court Justice, who refused to comment to reporters after a court appearance on Wednesday, has been suspended without pay pending the case. Loughry originally took office in 2012, slated for the standard 12-year term, and became the court’s Chief Justice in January of 2017.

judge1

‘PARDON ME’? Trump announces plans to pardon conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza; Considers ‘options’ for Stewart, Blagojevich

Washington, D.C. — President Donald Trump on Thursday announced plans to pardon Conservative author, documentary filmmaker and commentator Dinesh D’Souza.

“Will be giving a Full Pardon to Dinesh D’Souza today. He was treated very unfairly by our government!” the president proclaimed via Twitter.

D’Souza, who was convicted in 2014 to making illegal campaign contributions, has long maintained his innocence, claiming he was “forced” into copping a plea.

“Bharara (the prosecutor who charged D’Souza in 2014) & his goons bludgeoned me into the plea by threatening to add a second redundant charge carrying a prison term of FIVE YEARS,” D’Souza tweeted Thursday in response to the president’s announcement.

In addition to pardoning D’Souza, President Trump says he is weighing his options in regard to the convictions of business mogul Martha Stewart and former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Stewart, who founded a multi-million dollar lifestyle and home merchandising empire, was convicted in 2004 on charges related to insider stock trading. Prosecutors at the time alleged that she sold stock based on a nonpublic tip she received and avoided a loss on shares she owned of ImClone Systems. Stewart was found guilty of multiple felony counts, including conspiracy and making false statements to federal investigators, and was sentenced to five months in federal prison. She was released in 2005.

Blagojevich, a Democrat, was impeached and removed from office in 2009 on corruption charges following allegations that he solicited bribes in an effort to “sell” Barack Obama’s open Senate seat. He was sentenced to a 14-year federal prison sentence, which he is currently serving in Englewood, Colorado.

“There’s another one that I’m thinking about, Rod Blagojevich,” Trump told reporters Thursday while onboard Air Force One, adding that Blagojevich had received a lengthy sentence “for being stupid and saying things that every other politician, you know, that many other politicians say.”

“There was a lot of bravado … plenty of other politicians have said a lot worse. And it doesn’t, he shouldn’t have been put in jail. And he’s a Democrat. He’s not my party. But I thought that he was treated unfairly.”

pardons

THE FIGHT FOR LIFE: South Carolina Senate votes to outlaw virtually all abortions

Columbia, SC (The State) — The S.C. Senate voted Wednesday night to outlaw virtually all abortions in South Carolina.

The Legislature’s upper chamber voted 28-10 to allow exceptions only in cases of rape, incest or medical emergencies that could seriously harm the pregnant woman or threaten her life. The bill still faces long odds to passage, up against a Democratic filibuster that could put off a final Senate vote until after lawmakers adjourn for the year.

If passed, the new law almost certainly would spark a court challenge. But that is the goal, according to Senate Republicans who want to overturn the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming abortion rights.

“It’s designed to give the court an opportunity to revisit Roe v. Wade,” said Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield.

The proposal likely would ban some 97 percent of the roughly 5,700 abortions performed in South Carolina each year, according to the Democrat who suggested Republicans adopt it.

“It’s clearly unconstitutional from my point of view,” said state Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg.

Just before 10 p.m. Wednesday, Hutto proposed the expanded abortion ban as an amendment to a House bill outlawing “dismemberment” abortion, a rare procedure used to terminate 22 pregnancies in 2016.

Hutto said his aim was to give Senate Republicans a chance to vote on the bill they really want so the S.C. Legislature doesn’t continue to be bogged down year after year with debates on more nuanced abortion restrictions.

Settling the abortion issue would mean S.C. lawmakers can get to other important topics, including South Carolina’s $9 billion nuclear fiasco, Hutto said.

“It’s an attempt to get it to the courts so we don’t have to keep debating it over and over and over,” said Hutto, an attorney who said he is confident the courts would strike down the abortion ban in a court challenge.

Debate on the “dismemberment” ban had lasted two days in the Senate, and Democrats were planning to filibuster another several days — potentially until the end of the legislative session next week.

Shortly after Hutto proposed his amendment, it was adopted 24-1. State Sen. Marlon Kimpson, D-Charleston, cast the lone vote opposing the amendment as most Democrats sat on the sidelines.

The Senate voted for the overall bill 28-10 about an hour later. It still needs one more vote to pass the Senate, and Republicans expect Democrats to filibuster the amended proposal.

If the bill passes the Senate, it will head back to the GOP-controlled House for approval of the proposal, as amended by the Senate.

If approved there, it would go to Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, who has pledged to sign into law any pro-life bills the General Assembly sends him.

The Senate proposal completely replaces the previous House bill under debate, which would have made illegal so-called dismemberment abortions, rare procedures in which a doctor uses forceps to pull apart a fetus and remove it piece by piece.

Those procedures — used to terminate late-term pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother or abort a non-viable fetus — accounted for 22 of the 5,736 abortions in South Carolina in 2016, according to the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control.

On the Senate floor, Hutto told Senate Republicans to drop the “dismemberment” debate and vote for the law they really wanted.

“If you want to vote on it, this is your vote,” Hutto said. “If you want to dance on this one, you can see it on the commercials when you get home for your next election.”

MARCH LIFE WASHINGTON

 

THE PRICE OF FREE SPEECH: Alex Jones slapped with multi-million dollar lawsuits for questioning official story surrounding Sandy Hook

AUSTIN, TX — Conservative radio show hose Alex Jones has been served with multi-million dollar lawsuits by parents of several of the alleged victims of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre.

Jones, who has long publicly challenged the official story surrounding the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, has questioned whether the shooting may have been a staged “false flag” event, intended to sway public opinion toward increased gun control.

“Undoubtedly, there’s a cover-up, there’s actors, they’re manipulating, they’ve been caught lying, and they were pre-planning before it,” Jones said during a March 2014 broadcast of his nationally aired radio show “InfoWars”.

According to the suits, which were filed in Travis County, Texas early Tuesday, three of the parents of the children said to have died during the shooting, Neil Heslin, Leonard Pozner and his ex-wife Veronique De La Rosa, are accusing Jones of defamation.

A lawyer representing the parents said in a statement that the families have been traumatized by Jones’ claims.

“Our clients have been tormented for five years by Mr. Jones’s ghoulish accusations that they are actors who faked their children’s deaths as part of a fraud on the American people,” Mark Bankston, lead attorney in the case, said on Tuesday. “Enough is enough.”

In his suit, Heslin cites another comment made by Jones during a November 2016 broadcast in which Jones suggested the parents who were interviewed on television were actors paid to promote the left’s gun grab agenda.

“So, if children were lost at Sandy Hook, my heart goes out to each and every one of those parents. And the people who say they’re parents that I see on the news. The only problem is, I’ve watched a lot of soap operas. And I’ve seen actors before. And I know when I’m watching a movie and when I’m watching something real,” Jones said.

Also named in Heslin’s suit is Owen Shroyer, a reporter for InfoWars, who Heslin claims accused him of lying about holding his dead son in his arms during a televised interview about Jones with Megyn Kelly in the summer of 2017. In the interview, Shroyer suggested that, because news coverage had stated that the slain children were identified by photograph, Heslin may have lied about holding his slain child. “You would remember if you held your dead kid in your hands with a bullet hole. That’s not something you would just misspeak on,” Shroyer said during the interview.

Each of the suits filed against Jones allege that Jones’ claims of conspiracy have resulted in multiple death threats made against the victims’ families. Each suit is seeking more than $1m in damages.

According to the government’s official story, 20 first-grade students and six staff members gunned down inside the Sandy Hook elementary school on Dec. 14, 2012. The gunman, Adam Lanza, reportedly shot and killed his mother before driving to the school where he carried out the massacre and then killed himself.

“In all our years of helping families who have lost loved ones under horrific circumstances, we have never seen victims subjected to this kind of malicious cruelty,” Bankston said.

Calls for comment to Alex Jones were not immediately returned.

alexjones

TWITTER BUSTED: Project Veritas catches social media giant admitting to sharing Trump’s private messages

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — James O’Keefe on Wednesday announced on Conservative radio show host Michael Savage’s daytime show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV4cUKIepSg) that his undercover organization, Project Veritas, had captured a high ranking engineer at Twitter admitting to sharing President Donald Trump’s private messages with the Department of Justice, which has been engaged in an ongoing investigation into the president’s relationship with Russia for nearly a year.

A video posted to the Project Veritas website (https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/09/undercover-video-sr-network-security-engineer-reveals-twitter-ready-to-give-trumps-private-dms-to-doj/) reportedly shows an unsuspecting senior network security engineer at Twitter, Clay Haynes, admitting to sharing the president’s private messages, unbeknownst to Trump.

“We’re more than happy to help the DOJ with their little investigation” in the video, which was secretly recorded on January 3.

Speaking with an undercover journalist during a sit-down luncheon at a San Fransico cafe, Haynes seemingly let his guard down, blissfully unaware that the conversation was being recorded.

After being prompted by the incognito reporter for further details on what info was up for grabs, Haynes replied, “Basically, giving them every single tweet that he’s posted. Even the ones he’s deleted, any direct messages, any mentions.”

When pressed for a reason as to why he would want to violate the president’s privacy, Haynes replied, “He’s dangerous, I don’t like him and he’s a terrible human being and I want to get rid of him.”

“I don’t like being part of the machine that is contributing to America’s downfall,” Haynes continued, before describing himself as a “bleeding-heart Liberal”.

“I think it comes with the territory,” he added.

In response to the controversy, Twitter issued a public statement on Thursday, claiming that Haynes was speaking only for himself and does not represent the views of the company as a whole.

“Twitter only responds to valid legal requests, and does not share any user information with law enforcement without such a request,” a Twitter spokesperson said.

“We deplore the deceptive and underhanded tactics by which this footage was obtained and selectively edited to fit a pre-determined narrative. Twitter is committed to enforcing our rules without bias and empowering every voice on our platform, in accordance with the Twitter Rules.”

Under California law, the methods used to obtain the video are considered legal because the conversation took place in a public location with no expectation of privacy.

Calls for comment to The White House were not immediately returned.

twitterbusted