On Friday’s episode of The New York Times&#8217; podcast “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/podcasts/the-daily/weinstein-trial.html">The Daily</a>,” Donna Rotunno, a Chicago-based attorney who has represented dozens of men accused of sexual misconduct, was asked in a pre-recorded interview about her decision to now defend disgraced film mogul Harvey Weinstein. 
&#8220;My role in this is to represent him in a criminal case, and as I&#8217;ve said multiple times, there&#8217;s a difference between sins and crimes. You can believe that Harvey Weinstein is a sinner, and you can believe that he did things that you wouldn&#8217;t do or you wouldn&#8217;t like, but my question here is does that rise to the level of a crime,&#8221; Rotunno told Megan Twohey, the Times reporter who co-wrote the 2017 Weinstein investigation. 
“I think quite often, we look to the accusers and we talk about the effects that these things have on their lives, but we do not look at the effects that these types of allegations and accusations have on the person being accused,” said Rotunno. 
Rotunno remains particularly concerned with the long-term effects that sexual misconduct accusations have on men, invoking an observation her mother made about the media’s rush to condemn three Duke University lacrosse team players for a <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/lacrosse/2013/02/28/duke-2006-rape-allegations/1953607/">gang-rape allegation</a>: “When those boys die someday, their obituary is going to say the Duke Lacrosse players.” 
To clients who once felt hopeless, Rotunno’s legal acumen has made a world of difference. In 2013, Rotunno represented high-end fashion designer Elhadji Gueye, who was arrested when an acquaintance filed a police report alleging sexual assault, a charge Gueye maintained was filed only after he refused to pay her $50,000 in hush money, according to <a href="https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/February-2018/The-Defender/">Chicago Magazine</a>. 
When police requested as evidence the clothing she was wearing at the time of the alleged rape, the accuser didn’t submit the pajama bottoms, and later told the court she didn’t know where they went. But during cross-examination, Rotunno pointed to a peculiarity, revealed by a security camera that recorded the accuser’s alleged hush money request: “Of all the clothes in your closet, the ones you choose to wear to meet your ‘rapist’ were the pants you were raped in?” 
Rotunno believes her pointed question led the jury to a prompt not-guilty verdict, and reflected on the trial during the Times’ interview: “He wins, but what do you win? You win your case in criminal court, and then you have to worry about building your reputation back, if you can, where people are then willing to come back and frequent your establishment.”
According to <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nishitajha/harvey-weinstein-lawyer-donna-rotunno-daily-times-interview">Buzzfeed News</a>, after the interview aired on Friday, &#8220;prosecutors argued it violated Judge James Burke&#8217;s previous order directing lawyers to not discuss the case and the witnesses in public.&#8221; Rotunno claims the interview was recorded &#8220;a long time ago&#8221; and didn&#8217;t know when it would air, but the New York Times claims the interview was recorded on January 28 and that Rotunno knew it would air Friday.
When it concerns the man who sparked the #MeToo movement, the court of public opinion has been swift and decisive. But while nearly <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/us/harvey-weinstein-trial.html">80 women</a> have accused Weinstein of sexual misconduct, ranging from unwanted groping to forcible rape, the charges in the Manhattan trial are specific and concern only two criminal accusers. 
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/weinstein-jury-forced-to-review-his-nude-photos-following-intersex-vagina-allegation">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported, Jessica Mann, a former actress who is now a hairstylist, claims she consensually entered into a relationship with Weinstein after he forced her to permit him to perform oral sex. 
“I made the decision to be in a relationship with him,” said Mann, according to <a href="https://www.vulture.com/2020/01/jessica-mann-harvey-weinstein-trial-testimony.html">Vulture</a>. “And part of that was because I was sexual with very few people. I entered into what I thought was going to be a real relationship with him — and it was extremely degrading from that point on.”
Mann has also alleged that Weinstein violently raped her at a New York City hotel in 2013; Weinstein maintains that all encounters were consensual, and his defense team has produced emails from Mann showing that she maintained contact with him for years, and would provide him with updated contact information on multiple occasions. 
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/harvey-weinstein-accuser-he-ripped-out-my-tampon-and-performed-oral-sex-on-me">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported, Weinstein has also been accused of forcibly performing oral sex on Mimi Haleyi, a production assistant for Project Runway, at his apartment in 2006. 
In total, Weinstein faces five criminal counts, including rape and predatory sexual assault, in connection with alleged assaults against the two accusers. He faces up to life in prison if convicted. 
This report has been updated to include additional information about the nature of the interview, including a statement by Rotunno and the New York Times about it&#8217;s timing and release.

Harvey Weinstein Trial Continues In New York

Lead Weinstein Attorney Speaks Out: Here’s Why I Defend Men Accused Of Rape

Crime

Harvey Weinstein

Lawsuit

MeToo

Prison

Rape

Sexual Assault

Sexual Harassment

After taking a surprising lead in the faith-focused Iowa caucuses, presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg is now being discussed as a Democratic Party presidential frontrunner. But despite being a self-proclaimed Christian, Buttigieg’s rhetoric and policies undermine rather than support religious liberty.
Buttigieg has unabashedly embraced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-house-democrats-equality-act-both-josh-hammer">Equality Act legislation</a> that would strike a massive blow to our nation’s religious institutions. Specifically, the Equality Act would create a federally protected status for gender identity, defined as the “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
Any faith-based establishment — including churches, schools, and hospitals — with theological beliefs in conflict with this definition would likely face expensive legal battles, lawsuits, and public scrutiny. Case in point: A <a href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-wa-and-peacehealth-agree-settle-lawsuit-involving-transgender-healthcare" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-wa-and-peacehealth-agree-settle-lawsuit-involving-transgender-healthcare&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1581100427416000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGAth8sOEO3vpXX7ZIu4u4Xmi5vXA">Catholic hospital</a> was sued last year by the ACLU because it would not perform a risky sex-change surgery on a 16-year-old girl.
Unfortunately, the Equality Act would coerce health care and mental health professionals into providing dangerous gender-transition treatments for young children and adolescents, counter to their medical advice — and for many, against their religious beliefs.
Just as alarming, Buttigieg has imposed litmus tests based on what he deems theologically acceptable. We witnessed this first-hand when the former South Bend, Indiana mayor attacked Second Lady Karen Pence for teaching at a private school that adheres to her Judeo-Christian belief about marriage. In response, Buttigieg ridiculed the Pences and likened their religious views to that of “<a href="https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1086297780514115585?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1086297780514115585&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2019%2F11%2F11%2Fwhy-pete-buttigieg-is-the-most-destructive-candidate-for-christianity%2F" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1086297780514115585?ref_src%3Dtwsrc%255Etfw%257Ctwcamp%255Etweetembed%257Ctwterm%255E1086297780514115585%26ref_url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fthefederalist.com%252F2019%252F11%252F11%252Fwhy-pete-buttigieg-is-the-most-destructive-candidate-for-christianity%252F&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1581100427416000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGwUBGJvLf5CXMJu3hcs6dg6abQ5g">Pharisees</a>.”
As a private institution, like thousands of such private schools that have long existed in our country, the school where Mrs. Pence teaches has the right to govern its school according to its own religious beliefs. Islamic schools, Buddhist schools, and Jewish schools are also free to do so under the United States Constitution.
As an individual running for our nation’s highest office, Pete Buttigieg is signaling how a Buttigieg administration would handle religious liberty. And his signals should frighten many.
When explicitly asked about religious freedom, Buttigieg <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/10/buttigieg_religious_freedom_makes_god_smaller_when_used_used_as_an_excuse_to_harm_other_people.html" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/10/buttigieg_religious_freedom_makes_god_smaller_when_used_used_as_an_excuse_to_harm_other_people.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1581100427416000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGJ6Rk7gZclZ3HMbhwVWW9qPgHRiw">claimed</a>, “the right to religious freedom ends where religion is being used as an excuse to harm other people.” He gave no further explanation of his definition of “harm,” placing the ironclad religious protections that our nation has valued for generations at considerable risk under his vague interpretation.
Our founding charter, the Constitution, defends and supports the belief that America was established on the freedom of ALL religions. Furthermore, it is not just freedom afforded to spiritual individuals to put their trust in religious faith or belief. Rather, it is an essential aspect of a well-ordered society to respect that human beings are made in the image of a higher power and should be able to order their lives around their personal religious beliefs.
Mayor Pete has ignored that right, choosing instead to weaponize his beliefs as a litmus test against the beliefs of others. If an individual or entity gets in his way, he will marginalize them — no questions asked.
This complete disregard for our nation’s freedom isn’t how freedom actually works. Our rights aren’t good enough when a leader deems them acceptable to their standards; they stand on their own because the Constitution says so.
&nbsp;
Ms. Vought is executive director of the <a href="https://www.senateconservatives.com">Senate Conservatives Fund</a>. Her husband, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/author/russ-vought">Russ</a>, is acting director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg Begins Bus Tour Across NH Ahead Of Primary

VOUGHT: Pete Buttigieg Is No Friend Of Religious Liberty

2020 Election

ACLU

Constitution

Democratic Party

First Amendment

Leftism

LGBT

Nancy Pelosi

Pete Buttigieg

Actress Jessica Mann testified in a Manhattan courtroom on Friday that when disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein allegedly raped her in 2013 that she thought he was &#8220;intersex&#8221; because he did not have testicles and appeared to have a vagina.
&#8220;Weinstein faces charges in New York City for allegedly raping Mann, and for an alleged sexual assault on former actress Mimi Haleyi,&#8221; Vulture reported. &#8220;Prosecutors have used Sopranos actress Annabella Sciorra’s allegation that Weinstein raped her around late 1993 to bolster their claim that Weinstein has a pattern of predatory behavior. Weinstein has maintained his innocence.&#8221;
During her testimony, Mann said that Weinstein &#8220;would talk very dirty to me about fantasies and things, and compare me to the other things actresses that he said were doing kinky, dirty things with him. He always wanted to film me. I never gave him permission.&#8221;
At one point during her testimony, Mann said, “The first time I saw him fully naked I thought he was deformed and intersex. He has an extreme scarring that I didn’t know, maybe [he] was a burn victim …”
“He does not have testicles, and it appears that he has a vagina,” Mann said regarding the first time she saw him naked.
Vulture reported that as Mann made the allegations, Weinstein dropped his head.
When asked about Weinstein’s hygiene, Mann said, “It was very bad. He smelled like shit — excuse me, sorry, like poop. He just was dirty.”
Vulture&#8217;s report on Mann&#8217;s testimony detailed several highly graphic alleged instances of sexual assault that Mann said happened, including while she was in a brief tumultuous relationship with him.
Vulture asked Weinstein after the hearing if her description of him was accurate.
Weinstein responded: “Yeah, perfect.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Here is what <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HarveyWeinstein?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#HarveyWeinstein</a> had to say when asked if <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/jessicamann?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#jessicamann</a>&#39;s description of yr body accurate: <a href="https://t.co/jdT2JDK7ZI">pic.twitter.com/jdT2JDK7ZI</a>
&mdash; Victoria Bekiempis (@vicbekiempis) <a href="https://twitter.com/vicbekiempis/status/1223356641095159811?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The sexual allegations made against Weinstein in October 2017 were the catalyst for the #MeToo movement which saw numerous high profile men go down over sexual misconduct allegations.
The New York Times broke the story on October 5, 2017, writing:
<blockquote>Two decades ago, the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein invited Ashley Judd to the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for what the young actress expected to be a business breakfast meeting. Instead, he had her sent up to his room, where he appeared in a bathrobe and asked if he could give her a massage or she could watch him shower, she recalled in an interview.
“How do I get out of the room as fast as possible without alienating Harvey Weinstein?” Ms. Judd said she remembers thinking.
In 2014, Mr. Weinstein invited Emily Nestor, who had worked just one day as a temporary employee, to the same hotel and made another offer: If she accepted his sexual advances, he would boost her career, according to accounts she provided to colleagues who sent them to Weinstein Company executives. The following year, once again at the Peninsula, a female assistant said Mr. Weinstein badgered her into giving him a massage while he was naked, leaving her “crying and very distraught,” wrote a colleague, Lauren O’Connor, in a searing memo asserting sexual harassment and other misconduct by their boss.</blockquote>
Read The Times&#8217; full report <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html">here</a>. 
This report has been updated to include additional information.

US-trial-assault-film-celebrity

Weinstein Rape Accuser Testifies: He Didn’t Have Testicles, Appeared To Have Vagina First Time I Saw Him Naked

Judiciary

Sexual Abuse

Sexuality

As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-considering-dramatic-expansion-of-terrorist-nations-added-to-travel-ban-list">previewed weeks ago</a> and as has also been rumored for much of this current week, the Trump administration on Friday imposed travel restrictions on six new countries.
&#8220;President Donald Trump is expected to reveal an expansion of his controversial travel ban on Friday, the same day he could be acquitted in his impeachment trial and just days ahead of the president’s annual State of the Union address,&#8221; Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/trump-travel-ban-expansion-109659">reported</a> yesterday. &#8220;The expected announcement — confirmed by two people familiar with the matter — had initially been planned for this past Monday to coincide with the three-year anniversary of the original order, which restricted travel from several majority-Muslim nations.&#8221;
On Friday afternoon, The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-imposes-new-travel-restrictions-on-six-countries-11580500874?emailToken=ee9c4d96fd7222587f6a95ea5366a1faJTb2EUg+d0M9bUrQCrIOQzQ91WSepUbYHQgY9Wk%2F8tABR%2F6914m7UCcOGLZysxL+RosZfgYd3Lb8J2OSgyyjyduSEnQYimX%2FldifLfWwadKmtNJ7tcwwfsnO5mS8469GWPrBhircuAoxdsFvkggkYQ%3D%3D&amp;reflink=article_whatsapp_share&amp;fbclid=IwAR03FzpEH7xWpUAx8Zyh0wkm5hGE__rlQ_gQW9NIAzsU5wuLbIvKnm8_tAc">confirmed the news</a>. The six new countries to have various types of travel restrictions imposed upon them are Nigeria, Eritrea, Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan, and Tanzania.
&#8220;Citizens from Nigeria, Eritrea, Myanmar and Kyrgyzstan won’t be allowed to apply for visas to immigrate to the U.S. under the policy, which the Trump administration said was designed to tighten security for countries that don’t comply with the U.S. minimum security standards or cooperate to prevent illegal immigration,&#8221; the Journal reports. &#8220;Two other countries, Sudan and Tanzania, will be barred from participating in the diversity visa lottery, which randomly awards green cards to 50,000 immigrants from underrepresented countries annually. Many of the recipients are from African countries.&#8221;
Specifically, Nigeria, Eritrea, Myanmar and Kyrgyzstan will have the issuance suspended of all visas that might lead to permanent residency, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ban/trump-to-expand-travel-ban-to-six-additional-countries-u-s-official-idUSKBN1ZU2WD">Reuters</a>.
Overall, &#8220;[t]he six countries [added today] will join a list of seven nations, most of them Muslim-majority, that faced significant travel restrictions under President Trump’s original travel ban, issued in 2017,&#8221; the Journal continues. Those original seven nations were Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and North Korea.
That original travel ban was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the attention-grabbing 2018 case of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf">Trump v. Hawaii</a>.
&#8220;By its plain language, [8 U.S.C.] §1182(f) grants the president broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States,&#8221; Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a bare 5–4 Court majority. &#8220;The president lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings — following a worldwide, multi-agency review — that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest. And plaintiffs’ attempts to identify a conflict with other provisions in the [Immigration and Nationality Act], and their appeal to the statute’s purposes and legislative history, fail to overcome the clear statutory language.&#8221;
The addition of countries with Trump administration-imposed travel restrictions placed upon them surely has a political element, and can likely be viewed as an attempt by the president to help shore up his base in the lead-up to November&#8217;s election. But the primary rationale seems to be a more emotionally detached attempt to buttress homeland security.
“These countries for the most part want to be helpful, want to do the right thing,” said Chad Wolf, acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, according to the Journal. “But for a variety of reasons, they failed to meet those requirements we laid out.”

Passport on the desk of an American businessman

BREAKING: Trump Admin Adds New Travel Restrictions For Six Countries

Department of Homeland Security

Illegal Immigration

Immigrants

Immigration

John Roberts

Judicial Branch

Muslim Immigration

Supreme Court

Famed Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, a key part of President Donald Trump&#8217;s impeachment legal defense team, is under fire for a line of argumentation he has advanced this week on the Senate floor.
“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said on the floor, as <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/impeachment-q-and-a-moments-that-mattered-109272">reported</a> by Politico. “And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
According to Politico (which, incidentally, uses the term &#8220;unitary executive theory&#8221; while clearly <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1222991659417448448">not understanding what it means</a>), Dershowitz&#8217;s contention is &#8220;well outside the mainstream of legal scholars.&#8221; The National Law Journal, which is widely read within the legal profession, also has a paywalled <a href="https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/01/30/complete-nonsense-scholars-denounce-dershowitzs-trump-trial-arguments">piece today</a> entitled, &#8220;&#8216;Complete Nonsense&#8217;: Scholars Denounce Dershowitz&#8217;s Trump Trial Arguments.&#8221;
But it is those &#8220;scholars&#8221; who are, in fact, the ones peddling nonsense. Alan Dershowitz is emphatically correct. A president&#8217;s <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-corrupt-motives-doctrine-11580343258?mod=e2two">subjective motives</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/opinion/trump-impeachment-defense.html">nebulous fusion</a> of political and national interests cannot transform <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/17/trumps-ukraine-money-holdup-doesnt-make-for-an-impeachable-breach-of-the-law/">constitutionally lawful conduct</a>, such as a president engaging in a core foreign policy function, into an impeachable offense.
What&#8217;s more, a &#8220;quid pro quo,&#8221; if conducted within the context of a political actor carrying out his constitutional authority, amounts to constitutionally protected free speech. I made this argument in November both here at <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-there-is-one-terrific-impeachment-defense-that-the-white-house-is-not-making">The Daily Wire</a> and at the <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/26/why-trumps-ukraine-demands-werent-remotely-illegal/">New York Post</a>.
&#8220;In 2014, a Texas grand jury indicted then-Gov. Rick Perry for supposedly abusing his official capacity when he threatened to withhold $7.5 million in funding for the Travis County district attorney’s public integrity unit unless the troubled DA ­resigned her post,&#8221; I wrote at the Post. This was clearly a &#8220;quid pro quo,&#8221; but it was one executed in the context of Gov. Perry exercising his authority clearly vested in him by the Texas Constitution. Therefore, I noted that &#8220;an illustrious and ideologically diverse group of legal scholars &#8230; argued that the First Amendment protects a governmental official’s right to threaten taking a lawful action to attain a preferred political outcome.&#8221; They were vindicated:
<blockquote>The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the Lone Star State’s highest court for criminal cases, agreed. “Public servants have a First Amendment right to engage in expression, even threats, regarding their official duties,” the court held. “Many threats that … public servants make as part of the normal functioning of government” would be criminalized under the special prosecutor’s legal theory, the court continued.</blockquote>
Returning to the current impeachment of President Trump, Democrats would be hard-pressed to argue that constitutionally protected free speech can somehow fit the &#8220;high crimes and misdemeanors&#8221; impeachment criterion of Article II. After all, political exchanges for political value are utterly commonplace in our politics: Every high school civics student learns about the congressional practice of <a href="https://www.dictionary.com/browse/logrolling">logrolling</a>.
And it is simply implausible to argue that a political actor&#8217;s exercising his constitutional authority and engaging in constitutionally protected free speech could somehow become impeachable due to the &#8220;corrupt&#8221; or &#8220;mixed&#8221; nature of that political actor&#8217;s subjective motives. A couple of hypothetical examples should suffice.
In our first hypothetical, a president running for re-election has become particularly interested in prosecuting and deporting Nazis — not &#8220;alt-right&#8221; dolts, but actual, living Nazis. This is something that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/08/21/us-deports-former-nazi-guard-germany-says-many-more-are-under-investigation/">still happens</a> in America today. In our hypothetical, the president who has suddenly deemed the prosecution and deportation of Nazis a compelling national interest is fighting hard to win Florida, where he is polling neck-and-neck with his rival. He is set to campaign next week in Florida, and is hoping to make inroads with Florida&#8217;s large Jewish community. At the same time, it turns out that the particular high-profile Nazi the president wants to prosecute and deport is elusive, but a certain European country — let&#8217;s call it Ukraine — has highly pertinent information about that Nazi&#8217;s whereabouts. Is it modern Democrats&#8217; contention that the president cannot here delay foreign aid disbursement to Ukraine and only release the aid on the condition that Ukraine pledges to assist the president hunt down the specific Nazi of his ire?
In our simpler second hypothetical, the facts on the ground are the precise same as they are in real life, but for one tiny difference: Joe Biden is not seeking the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. Is it really modern Democrats&#8217; contention that Biden&#8217;s mere presence in the 2020 Democratic field (1) outright immunizes him and his son from public scrutiny about past activities, (2) ties the president&#8217;s hands with respect to ferreting out corruption in Ukraine, and (3) turns constitutionally protected free speech into activity so nefarious so as to be impeachable?
The Democrats&#8217; theory of impeachment is implausible. Worse, it would set an exceedingly dangerous precedent for future partisan impeachments. In our messy system of American politics, there is no such thing as a fine line distinguishing the personal from the national. A political actor, while engaging in constitutionally permissible conduct, is fully within his right to pursue a policy that he simultaneously believes to be in both the national and his personal interest.

Alan Dershowitz at Senate impeachment trial

HAMMER: Alan Dershowitz Is Right. ‘Mixed Motive’ Presidential Quid Pro Quos Are Not Impeachable.

Alan Dershowitz

Donald Trump

Foreign Policy

Impeachment

U.S. Senate

Ukraine

Carter Page, the former adviser for President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, is suing the Democratic National Committee and those who helped pay for the salacious dossier that formed the basis for multiple surveillance warrants used to spy on Page and the campaign.
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-trump-aide-carter-page-files-suit-against-dnc-over-dossier-this-is-only-the-first-salvo">exclusively reported</a> that the lawsuit was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois’ Eastern Division. The 23-page lawsuit names the DNC, law firm Perkins Coie and its partners, who paid Ex-British Intelligence officer Christopher Steele to dig up dirt on Trump. The “dirt” Steele found was nothing but rumors and innuendo. Steele himself said at least one of his sources was a “boaster” and an “egoist” who likely engaged “in some embellishment.”
The FBI used that dubious dossier, however, to obtain warrants to surveil Page and the Trump campaign. Even then, the FBI had to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ig-report-here-are-the-17-specific-inaccuracies-and-omissions-in-the-fbis-fisa-warrants-against-carter-page">omit information</a> in order to obtain the warrants. In early December, the Department of Justice Inspector General determined that the FBI violated numerous policies by omitting information and including repeated errors when obtaining the warrants against Page.
Page’s lawsuit states that the defendants “used false information, misrepresentations and other misconduct to direct the power of the international intelligence apparatus and the media industry against a private individual, Plaintiff Carter Page, to further their political agenda.”
Page had previously worked with the CIA and the FBI, which explained why he had contact with certain Russian officials. When the FBI filed its warrant applications against Page, it purposefully omitted that information even after it confirmed Page previously had been a source for the intelligence community.
“Defendants’ efforts mobilized the news media against Dr. Page, damaging his reputation, and effectively destroying his once-private life. The Defendants’ wrongful actions convinced many Americans that Dr. Page is a traitor to the United States, and as a result he has received—and continues to receive—multiple death threats. Dr. Page’s businesses have suffered greatly from the false, malicious information spread by Defendants. In short, Defendants’ actions have not only damaged Plaintiffs’ reputations and financial prospects, they have even caused Dr. Page to reasonably fear for his safety,” the lawsuit states.
Page <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-carter-page-it-was-not-political-bias-that-led-to-fbi-spying-on-me-but-policy-bias">told</a> The Daily Wire in December that he received the most threats on the day that former FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Intelligence committee. Among other threats that day, Page received a voicemail from an unknown caller, who referred to something Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said during Comey’s testimony.
The lawsuit does not seek a specific amount in damages.
Page is represented by John Pierce of Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price &amp; Hecht LLP, who is also representing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-tulsi-gabbard-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-hillary-clinton">her lawsuit</a> against Hillary Clinton for defamation. Pierce told Fox News that Page’s lawsuit against the DNC and Perkins Coie was “a first step to ensure that the full extent of the FISA abuse that has occurred during the last few years is exposed and remedied.”
“Defendants and those they worked with inside the federal government did not and will not succeed in making America a surveillance state,” he continued.
In a press release, Pierce added:
For years, Carter Page stood alone as the DNC, Perkins Coie and officials at the highest levels of the federal government attempted to destroy his life and derail President Trump’s 2016 campaign.  They failed on both fronts. It is a credit to Dr. Page’s strength of character, resilience and patriotism that he was not broken by this onslaught. He no longer stands alone. Today, Pierce Bainbridge and Dr. Page begin a campaign to restore Dr. Page’s name and hold those who targeted him accountable.  Most importantly, this is a first step to ensure that the full extent of the FISA abuse that has occurred during the last few years is exposed and remedied. Defendants and those they worked with inside the federal government did not and will not succeed in making America a surveillance state. But this is thanks only to the brave actions of patriotic citizens such as Dr. Page who stand up as individuals to fight for the civil liberties of all Americans.  This is only the first salvo. We will follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how high, and we will hold all those who conspired to destroy Dr. Page’s life along with the Constitution accountable. The rule of law will prevail.

Carter Page

Carter Page Files Lawsuit Against DNC Over Dossier That Targeted Him

On Tuesday evening, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a constitutional attorney by training who previously served as a judicial law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-HnMAHs3-c">joined</a> “Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler” on One America News Network (OANN) to discuss the news from earlier this month that a divided Fifth Circuit panel, in the case of <a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-40016-CR0.pdf">U.S. v. Varner</a>, denied a motion from a biological male litigant who formally moved to have the panel address him using female pronouns.
Earlier this month, Hammer <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/culture-war-in-the-courts-federal-appeals-panel-divides-on-transgender-pronouns/">summarized</a> and briefly opined upon the case for The Daily Wire, referencing the &#8220;fascinating&#8221; development that Trump nominee Judge S. Kyle Duncan&#8217;s majority opinion used male pronouns, whereas Clinton nominee Judge James L. Dennis&#8217;s dissent used female pronouns:
<blockquote>Alas, the latest and most disputatious, headline-grabbing front of our ceaseless culture war has fully hit the federal judiciary. &#8230;
Ultimately, Duncan concluded, “[c]ourts would have to do the same. We decline to enlist the federal judiciary in this quixotic undertaking.” &#8230;
Good for Judge Duncan for both adhering to the letter of the law and for defiantly standing athwart the modern cultural Left’s pernicious insistence on gaslighting the American citizenry into thinking that words may not mean what they so clearly do, in fact, mean.</blockquote>
Earlier this week, prior to the OANN appearance with Wheeler, Hammer also wrote a <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/transgender-pronouns-fifth-circuit-rejects-them-and-lie-they-stand-on/">column</a> about the case for National Review:
<blockquote>To capitulate to the Pandora’s box of transgender pronouns is to pretend that, exceedingly rare intersex exceptions aside, there is more to sexual differentiation than the duality of chromosomal male and chromosomal female. To yield to the soft tyranny of transgender pronouns is to pretend that gender dysphoria is an anodyne lifestyle on which societal legitimacy should be conferred, not a psychological malady requiring compassion and psychological treatment. It is to act as if simple words that have meant the same thing for centuries can change their meanings overnight without ruinous consequence for the language’s durability. It is to encourage the <a href="https://time.com/5767844/transgender-youth-legislation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-reader-unique-id="21">premature sexualization</a> of children and accede to <a href="https://transcare.ucsf.edu/article/information-testosterone-hormone-therapy" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-reader-unique-id="22">often irreversible</a> tampering of their hormones. It is to undermine the ancient Hippocratic oath: “First, do no harm.” Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, maintains that to encourage “surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”</blockquote>
Wheeler and Hammer touched upon many of the same substantive themes during the OANN TV appearance, with Hammer stating that Judge Duncan&#8217;s fearless majority opinion made him a &#8220;very proud Fifth Circuit alum&#8221;:
<blockquote>You know, I finished clerking on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit barely over a year ago, so I&#8217;m very familiar with this court. I know both Judge Duncan and Judge Jerry Smith, who was also in the majority, personally, actually. Judge Duncan, Trump nominee — a wonderful jurist based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
So basically what happened here was a very unusual procedural posture. I mean, this took the format of an order — it was more of an order than a traditional &#8220;case&#8221; or &#8220;controversy,&#8221; we might say. But the litigant formally moved to be addressed by a transgender pronoun, which is very unusual. Certainly, in my time clerking, I never came across something like that. That is not a typical motion that as a judge or a law clerk, you see on a day-to-day basis &#8230; [but] I was a very proud Fifth Circuit alum when I saw this opinion.</blockquote>
Wheeler said that she agreed with &#8220;every word&#8221; of Hammer&#8217;s.
WATCH:
<iframe title="Court Rules on Gender Pronouns" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QVp0Vdif0KA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hammer OANN 1.28.20

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: The Fifth Circuit Rejects Transgender Pronouns

Transgender

Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, who is a former judicial law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, has the following piece today at <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/transgender-pronouns-fifth-circuit-rejects-them-and-lie-they-stand-on/">National Review Online</a>.
Cultural progressives, who reject the very humanity of unborn children but confidently assure us that there are upward of <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10930654/Facebooks-71-gender-options-come-to-UK-users.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-reader-unique-id="8">70 distinct genders</a>, tend to have an uneasy relationship with the truth. And the proliferation of transgender pronouns — the use of biologically inaccurate pronouns to describe those afflicted with gender dysphoria — is among the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/transgender-pronouns-conservatives-should-not-use/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-reader-unique-id="9">more pernicious tools</a> in the broader arsenal that progressives use to have us question that truth.
Earlier this month, in U.S. v. Varner, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit boldly refused to appease those who would muddle truth. Over the dissent of a Clinton-nominated judge who used female pronouns in his opinion to refer to the biologically male defendant, the majority <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/transgender-pronoun-conflict-in-the-fifth-circuit/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-reader-unique-id="12">refused to subordinate</a> the integrity of the judiciary to a litigant who had moved to require the court to address him as something other than what plain English would indicate he is. In so doing, the Fifth Circuit panel has provided a roadmap for how public officials interested in preserving the commonality and vitality of the English language can resist contemporary progressivism’s attempts to obfuscate truth through the propagation of biologically inaccurate and linguistically imprecise transgender pronouns.
Writing for the Varner majority, Trump-nominated judge Kyle Duncan first observed that “no authority supports the proposition that we may require litigants, judges, court personnel, or anyone else to refer to gender-dysphoric litigants with pronouns matching their subjective gender identity.” Second, because “federal courts today are asked to decide cases that turn on hotly-debated issues of sex and gender identity,” Judge Duncan feared that the court’s use of subjectively felt but biologically inaccurate pronouns would “unintentionally convey” a “tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position.” Third, referring to “Pronouns—a How To Guide,” a colorful five-column-by-nine-row matrix from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee LGBTQ+ Resource Center, Duncan argued that “deploying such neologisms” could “well turn out to be more complex than at first it might appear” and could “could hinder communication among the parties and the court.”
Ultimately, the panel majority logically “declined to enlist the federal judiciary in this quixotic undertaking.” Duncan’s courageous refusal to engage in it amounts, in progressive parlance, to “deadnaming” or “misgendering.” For transgender activists and the rest of the “woke” mob, such rogue behavior is akin to malicious aggression. But it is reflective of both the biological truth that sex is immutable and the linguistic truth that, for a language to remain viable, words must have readily discernible meanings.
To capitulate to the Pandora’s box of transgender pronouns is to pretend that, exceedingly rare intersex exceptions aside, there is more to sexual differentiation than the duality of chromosomal male and chromosomal female. To yield to the soft tyranny of transgender pronouns is to pretend that gender dysphoria is an anodyne lifestyle on which societal legitimacy should be conferred, not a psychological malady requiring compassion and psychological treatment. It is to act as if simple words that have meant the same thing for centuries can change their meanings overnight without ruinous consequence for the language’s durability. It is to encourage the <a href="https://time.com/5767844/transgender-youth-legislation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-reader-unique-id="17">premature sexualization</a> of children and accede to <a href="https://transcare.ucsf.edu/article/information-testosterone-hormone-therapy" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-reader-unique-id="18">often irreversible</a> tampering of their hormones. It is to undermine the ancient Hippocratic oath: “First, do no harm.” Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, maintains that to encourage “surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.” &#8230;
<a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/transgender-pronouns-fifth-circuit-rejects-them-and-lie-they-stand-on/">Read the rest here</a>.

Judge holding gavel, close-up

Hammer At ‘National Review’: The Fifth Circuit Rejects The Lie Of Transgender Pronouns

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning heard oral argument in the crucial First Amendment religious liberty case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The legal issue, as framed by <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/espinoza-v-montana-department-of-revenue/">SCOTUSblog</a>, is &#8220;[w]hether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.&#8221;
Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/argument-preview-justices-to-consider-dispute-over-tax-credits-for-scholarships/">contextualizes the importance</a> of Espinoza through the prism of the Court&#8217;s recent First Amendment religious liberty jurisprudence:
<blockquote>Two and a half years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Missouri’s policy of excluding churches from a program to provide grants to resurface playgrounds violated the Constitution. In a footnote in their opinion in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-pauley/">Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer</a>, the justices emphasized that their decision was limited to the facts before them and did “not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.” [In Espinoza], the justices will return to the question they left open in Trinity Lutheran, when they review a decision by the Montana Supreme Court invalidating a tax-credit program because the scholarships created by the program could be used at religious schools.</blockquote>
The Montana state constitutional provision challenged in Espinoza is a so-called &#8220;Blaine Amendment&#8221; — an unfortunate area of law that has its insidious origins in blatant anti-Catholic bigotry. <a href="https://firstliberty.org">First Liberty Institute</a>&#8216;s Jeremy Dys explained the sordid history yesterday in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dys-its-time-to-end-the-bigotry-of-blaine-amendments">Daily Wire op-ed</a> calling for the Court to end &#8220;Blaine Amendments&#8221; once and for all:
<blockquote>In 1875, &#8230; [James] Blaine introduced a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would prevent any government aid to “sectarian schools,” targeting Catholic schools in particular.
His federal amendment failed, but various states borrowed his proposal and their own constitutions were amended instead. Today, almost 40 states have a constitutional provision that prevents government aid to religious institutions. These state constitutional amendments have empowered states to legally discriminate against religious organizations when they perform the same work secular institutions do.
For years, activists have used Blaine Amendments to successfully exclude religious individuals and organizations from benefitting from public benefits. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote of Blaine Amendments in the 2000 decision of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/793/">Mitchell v. Helms</a>, “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.”</blockquote>
Ilya Shapiro, who filed a “<a href="https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2019-09/Espinoza-merits.pdf">friend of the court brief</a>” on behalf of Cato Institute&#8217;s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, is optimistic that the Court will do precisely what Justice Thomas called for it to do in Mitchell. Speaking exclusively with The Daily Wire, Shapiro opined: &#8220;The Supreme Court has the opportunity here to remove the last legal barrier to school choice, and I think it’s poised to do so. Constitutional principles of free exercise and equal protection don’t allow Montana to exclude religious groups from public benefits solely because of their religious nature. Similarly, there’s no room in Supreme Court precedent to exclude religious schools from programs structured around private choice (as opposed to, say, direct taxpayer funding of devotional education).&#8221;
In an additional <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/slugh-jewish-groups-must-support-ending-the-bigotry-of-blaine-amendments">Daily Wire op-ed</a> published this morning, <a href="https://www.jcrl.org/">Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty</a> (JCRL) General Counsel Howard Slugh also lambasted the bigotry of Blaine&#8217;s legacy. &#8220;Espinoza has a strong legal basis for her claims,&#8221; Slugh wrote. &#8220;The Supreme Court recently <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf">indicated</a> [in Trinity Lutheran] that excluding a religious organization &#8216;from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely&#8217; because it is religious &#8216;is odious to our Constitution … and cannot stand.&#8217; The Supreme Court should strike down Montana’s Blaine Amendment based on the same reasoning.&#8221;
Slugh, who filed a “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/116233/20190918141339707_No18-1195JRCL.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2-39Qgpp2Hc2MEbPaRhiXeeFVGOgNpEWF0_5AMTEa6onbe90Xbsc5_yzU">friend of the court brief</a>” on behalf of JCRL, was in attendance this morning at the Supreme Court oral argument. Speaking exclusively with The Daily Wire, Slugh described what he saw: &#8220;I was very pleased with how the oral argument went. It seemed that at least five justices understood that the key issue in this case is whether it was permissible for the Montana Supreme Court to act pursuant to a law that, on its face, requires discrimination against religious people without even considering whether such discrimination is permissible under the U.S. Constitution. The answer to that question is that it is not permissible, and at least five justices seemed to support that position.&#8221;
Proponents of religious liberty and school choice ought to hope that Slugh&#8217;s intuition proves prescient.

The U.S. Supreme Court Building

Supreme Court Hears Blockbuster Case On Religious School Choice

Clarence Thomas

Education

Religion

School Choice

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/espinoza-v-montana-department-of-revenue/">Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue</a>. Kendra Espinoza challenged a state constitutional provision, known as a “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dys-its-time-to-end-the-bigotry-of-blaine-amendments">Blaine Amendment</a>,” which requires the state to exclude religious schools from scholarship programs. Espinoza argues that she has a First Amendment right to use the scholarship funds to send her daughters to a religious school, so long as the school meets the program’s other requirements.
If Espinoza prevails, the impacts will extend beyond Montana. Thirty-seven other state constitutions contain similar Blaine Amendment-type provisions. Declaring these amendments unconstitutional could alleviate the burden that day school tuition imposes on many Jewish (and Christian) parents by allowing them to take advantage of school choice programs. Many Jewish communal organizations supported this result. But inexplicably, some Jewish groups opposed it. In light of such organizations’ opposition to a position that would benefit Jewish parents, American Jews should determine for themselves whether those group’s interests align with their own.
Espinoza has a strong legal basis for her claims. The Supreme Court recently<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf"> indicated</a> that excluding a religious organization “from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely” because it is religious “is odious to our Constitution &#8230; and cannot stand.” The Supreme Court should strike down Montana’s Blaine Amendment based on the same reasoning.
In light of the potential benefits. many Jewish organizations supported Espinoza’s position. The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty (JCRL) — for whom I serve as general counsel — filed a “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/116233/20190918141339707_No18-1195JRCL.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2-39Qgpp2Hc2MEbPaRhiXeeFVGOgNpEWF0_5AMTEa6onbe90Xbsc5_yzU">friend of the court brief</a>” highlighting the impact that this case might have for the Jewish community. JCRL explained the importance of religious schools to many Jewish families and the “Hobson’s choice” many Jewish parents face “between their financial security and their community’s religious continuity.” It highlighted the ways in which a positive ruling might lessen that burden — by increasing funding available to Jewish parents.
The JCRL was not alone in supporting Espinoza’s position. Agudath Israel submitted a<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/120704/20191030001211377_Rev%20EFile%20Copy%20of%20No.%2018-1195%20CoS.pdf"> brief</a> indicating that “the constitutional principle that this case could establish &#8230; has great significance” for the Jewish community. The Orthodox Union (OU) joined a <a href="https://advocacy.ou.org/content/uploads/OU_EspinozavMontana_Amicus-brief.pdf">brief</a> explaining that “the overwhelming majority of [religiously observant Jews] choose to send their children to Jewish nonpublic schools,” and that a ruling for Espinoza would ensure the “equal treatment of all students in access to private education.” The executive vice president of the OU explained that a ruling in favor of Espinoza would “solidify the long-term beneficial impact” of many state aid programs that the organization has supported.
Unfortunately, not all Jewish communal organizations were in harmony. Organizations including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Men for Reform Judaism, the National Council of Jewish Women, The Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Women of Reform Judaism supported maintaining the Blaine Amendment. These groups <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/122538/20191115111640255_18-1195bsacReligiousandCivil-RightsOrganizations.pdf">joined</a> a brief, which was also signed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, that favored allowing discrimination against religious schools. It seems odd that such groups would support a law obligating states to discriminate against Jewish day schools, but they did.
The Montana Association of Rabbis (MAOR) filed its own <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/122638/20191115160743194_Espinoza%20v.%20Montana%2018-1195%20Montana%20Rabbis%20amicus.pdf">brief</a> that presented the most troubling arguments for the other side. The Montana rabbis&#8217; brief preferences depriving its Christian neighbors of student aid funding over advocating for a religiously neutral position that would benefit Jewish parents. MAOR goes further than merely arguing that Montana may legally choose to discriminate against religious schools. It argues that Montana must discriminate against religious schools in order to avoid violating the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-bladensburg-cross-memorial-case-supreme-josh-hammer">First Amendment’s Establishment Clause</a>. If the Supreme Court were to accept this position, it would threaten state aid to religious schools, organizations, and individuals in every state — not merely those with Blaine Amendments.
MAOR argues that the Supreme Court should adopt its draconian and legally dubious position because “the demographics of Montana mean that the only religious schools eligible to benefit from the state’s tax-credit program are Christians.” This outcome would be true solely because of the demographics of Montana — there is no evidence that the program would ever intentionally discriminate in favor of Christian schools. In other states, non-Christian schools would clearly benefit. But the Montana rabbis would deny Jews nationwide this benefit in order to avoid benefiting Christians in Montana.
MAOR seems either not to realize or care that the ruling in this case will affect parents nationwide, including those in states with large Jewish populations and many Jewish schools. It is short-sighted, to say the least, to ask the Supreme Court to reinterpret the First Amendment to require states to discriminate against religious organizations simply to deprive Christian parents of a benefit in a single state.
Other groups, such as the ADL, joined a less extreme brief which argued the Supreme Court should reject “arguments for a right to funding of religious education on an equal basis with private secular education.&#8221; As a necessary result of this position, states would be allowed to discriminate against religious schools (and individuals) solely because of their faith even if they qualified for state funding in every other way. That brief approvingly cites a delegate to the Montana Constitutional Convention of 1889 who stated that “[i]f we cannot support our private schools, then it’s our own fault.” Suffice to say that many Jewish parents struggling to pay for their children’s tuition at a private Jewish school would likely disagree.
The Montana Association of Rabbis is free to make denying state benefits to Christians their primary concern. The ADL is welcome to adopt pursuing a secular public square and an impenetrable &#8220;wall of separation&#8221; between church and state as a goal. But American Jews should be aware of their motivations and should question how closely such groups can truly be said to represent their interests.
&nbsp;
Howard Slugh is the General Counsel of the <a href="https://www.jcrl.org">Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty</a>.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dys-its-time-to-end-the-bigotry-of-blaine-amendments">It&#8217;s Time To End The Bigotry Of Blaine Amendments</a>
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-dallas-jewish-monthly-religious-liberty-for-all-is-good-for-jews">Religious Liberty For All Is Good For Jews</a>

SLUGH: Jewish Groups Must Support Ending The Bigotry Of Blaine Amendments

James Gillespie Blaine led an interesting life. He served as speaker of the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate. Twice he served as secretary of state, holding the position under three separate presidents. He even sought the presidency, losing to Grover Cleveland.
Blaine’s most notorious legacy, however, is an amendment bearing his name.
Blaine got his idea from a fiery speech delivered by President Ulysses Grant at the height of a national controversy over whether religion had any place within the nation’s public schools. In 1875, President Grant declared, “Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.”
Days later, Blaine introduced a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would prevent any government aid to “sectarian schools,” targeting Catholic schools in particular.
His federal amendment failed, but various states borrowed his proposal and their own constitutions were amended instead. Today, almost 40 states have a constitutional provision that prevents government aid to religious institutions. These state constitutional amendments have empowered states to legally discriminate against religious organizations when they perform the same work secular institutions do.
For years, activists have used Blaine Amendments to successfully exclude religious individuals and organizations from benefitting from public benefits. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote of Blaine Amendments in the 2000 decision of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/793/">Mitchell v. Helms</a>, “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.”
But Blaine’s legacy still lives. Just a few years ago, in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf">Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer</a>, many who hoped to attend the funeral of Blaine Amendments were disappointed when the Court stopped just short of killing Blaine. A frustrated Chief Justice John Roberts observed in the majority opinion that the Blaine Amendment at issue in Trinity Lutheran put the church to the choice of either operating as a church or “automatic and absolute exclusion from the benefits of a public program for which the [church] is otherwise fully qualified.”
How can that still stand in the year 2020? Place two organizations on equal footing — one of whom is charitably motivated because of its secularity and the other by its religious convictions. Yet only the secular organization qualifies for participation in public programs.
In fact, government officials need not rely upon the overall ability, educational or professional qualifications, financial stability, or facilities of a religious organization to decide whether it may participate. Rather, they may exclude religious organizations because they are religious organizations. Their religion may be the sole criterion for exclusion.
This week, the Supreme Court justices will have another crack at Blaine’s legacy. In <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/espinoza-v-montana-department-of-revenue/">Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue</a>, parents of young children challenge the state’s denial of the use of scholarship funds for their children to attend a religious school. The funds come from private donations for which individuals and/or organizations receive a tax credit. Montana contends this administrative act of government conceding taxes for charitable donations necessarily excludes the religious from participation.
First Liberty Institute, where I work, has experience with this. In fact, we have a good friend with more than a little personal experience. The state of Washington used its Blaine Amendment to deny Joshua Davey a promise scholarship that he intended to use to study for religious ministry at a religious college. His case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, where the court upheld Washington’s decision in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/540/712/">Locke v. Davey</a>.
But, Davey, inspired by the attorneys who helped him with his case, went to Harvard Law School instead and now has a thriving law practice in North Carolina. He partnered with First Liberty to draft a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/116222/20190918134556011_18-1195%20Amicus%20Brief%20Forge.pdf">friend-of-the-court brief</a> in support of the Espinozas.
We argue on behalf of another client from Benton County, Washington, Forge Youth Mentoring. There, county officials ultimately decided not end their grant to Forge, which was among the only mentoring groups lending help to the troubled youth of their community. But that came only after First Liberty got involved. Otherwise, Blaine would have claimed yet another victim.
Religious organizations are as deserving of participation in public programs as anybody else. It was wrong for Blaine and his ilk to insist upon excluding Catholics from such participation in the 1800s. Insisting that we sanitize the public square of religious organizations merely begets a government intent on enforcing what Attorney General William Barr <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jeremy-dys-liberal-attack-on-barrs-religious-freedom-speech-shows-hes-right">might refer to as</a> “militant secularism.”
Rather, the promise of the First Amendment is — at the very least — that government will be neutral towards religion. This welcomes religious organizations to compete in the public square on equal footing with other organizations. If they are to be denied, let it be for legitimate reasons having not the whiff of religious discrimination. Government should never tolerate the codification of religious bigotry.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

SCOTUS

DYS: It’s Time To End The Bigotry Of Blaine Amendments

Discrimination

&#8220;Never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.&#8221; – Leftist Journalism 101
Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is, you see, a conservative man. In what was still a relatively rare move, at the time, Senate Democrats filibustered the judicial nomination of the then-Alabama attorney general due to their belief that Pryor was a devil-may-care extremist. In 2004, President George W. Bush first installed Pryor on the bench via <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/bush.pryor/">recess appointment</a>. During an at-times heated eventual Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, the avowedly pro-life Pryor had these <a href="https://www.congress.gov/108/chrg/CHRG-108shrg91200/CHRG-108shrg91200.htm">remarkable exchanges</a> with Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Arlen Specter (R-PA):
<blockquote>Schumer: Now, you have said on occasion, on several occasions, that Roe v. Wade is &#8220;the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.&#8221; Do you believe that as of right now?
Pryor: I do.
Schumer: I appreciate your candor, I really do. &#8230;
Specter: &#8220;In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court preserved the worst abomination of constitutional law [Roe] in our history.&#8221; Is that an accurate quotation of yours?
Pryor: Yes.
Specter: Is that [comment] one which would fall into the category that Senator [Orrin] Hatch has commented on, you wish you had not made?
Pryor: No, I stand by that comment.
Specter: Why do you consider it an abomination, Attorney General Pryor?
Pryor: Well, I believe that not only is the case unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children. That&#8217;s my personal belief.</blockquote>
Since joining the federal judiciary, Pryor — on issues ranging from criminal sentencing to habeas corpus to due process to the role of religion in public life — has indeed been a consistent voice for an originalist, conservative jurisprudence. He was publicly floated as a leading contender for the Supreme Court vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, which was ultimately filled by now-Justice Neil Gorsuch. Alas, that was a botched opportunity for those of us <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-yes-alabama-legislature-right-openly-defy-josh-hammer">staunchly pro-life</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-a-political-wish-for-2020-less-socialism-more-law-and-order">traditional law-and-order</a> conservatives with no small degree of skepticism for the genre of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-three-things-conservatives-must-look-future-josh-hammer">libertarian-infused</a> originalism sometimes <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/gorsuch-dead-wrong-immigration/">peddled by Gorsuch</a>.
Regardless, the Left has never forgiven Pryor for his steadfast refusal to bend the knee at the altar of the progressive golden calf. He has repeatedly found himself, over the years, in the crosshairs of what Andrew Breitbart famously called the &#8220;<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574451703003340362">Democrat-Media Complex</a>.&#8221; Which brings us to the recent 11th Circuit case of <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715470.pdf">U.S. v. Brown</a>.
If you believe the findings of the trial court, former U.S. Congresswoman Corrine Brown of Florida is about as corrupt as an elected Democrat can come. Brown, who served in Congress for 24 years, was ultimately convicted in May 2017 on 20 federal corruption charges, ranging from mail fraud to filing false tax return documentation. In December 2017, she was sentenced to five years in federal penitentiary and ordered to pay restitution.
And now, just last week, her federal appeal in the 11th Circuit was denied — over the dissent, perhaps curiously at first blush, of Judge Pryor. For having the temerity to opine that an allegedly deeply venal Democrat is rightfully &#8220;entitle[d] to a new trial,&#8221; Pryor was <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-supreme-court-shortlister-william-pryor-god-juries.html">excoriated at Slate yesterday</a> by longstanding leftist legal blogger Andrew Cohen.
It is important to understand why Cohen&#8217;s risible smear does not even pass the smell test.
Brown&#8217;s trial featured a peculiar twist. One prospective juror, to whom the dueling 11th Circuit opinions only refer as &#8220;Juror 13,&#8221; appears to have been a devout Christian. For the trial court, this was problematic. Here is how Matthew Franck <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-case-of-the-florida-politico-and-the-praying-juror/">accurately summarizes</a> the crux of the legally relevant issue at National Review&#8217;s &#8220;Bench Memos&#8221; blog:
<blockquote>After an eight-day trial, the jury was given its instructions by the court; at the end of the second day of its deliberations one juror (Juror 8) relayed her concern to the judge that another juror (Juror 13) had spoken of being guided by a “higher being” in reaching the conclusion that Brown should be acquitted on all counts.
Summoned to meet with the judge and counsel in the case, Juror 13 was questioned about what he had said, and about his ability to participate in deciding the case according to the evidence and testimony. After two probing — but often somewhat opaque — interviews, the judge decided to excuse the juror (and seat an alternate in his place), ruling that it was “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he could not be trusted to abide by his juror’s oath to do impartial justice according to the evidence.</blockquote>
Specifically, Juror 13&#8217;s purportedly disqualifying sin was saying, at some point during juror deliberations, &#8220;something to the effect of &#8216;the Holy Spirit told me that Corrine Brown was not guilty on all charges.'&#8221;
Cohen, mocking Pryor&#8217;s &#8220;long, rambling dissent,&#8221; cavalierly asserts that &#8220;[t]he problem with Juror 13 wasn’t just that he believed he was being directed by God to render a decidedly secular verdict. The problem also was that he evidently did not understand that to say so, to believe so, would undermine his ability to abide by the judge’s instructions and evaluate Brown’s guilt or innocence based solely on the evidence in court.&#8221;
This is a disingenuous and willful distortion of the record in this case.
Pryor&#8217;s dissent, spanning 65 pages, painstakingly produces large chunks of the trial court record in order to demonstrate that Juror 13 did not do precisely what Cohen accuses him of having done. The 11th Circuit&#8217;s legal standard for dismissing a deliberating juror is the high threshold of &#8220;beyond reasonable doubt,&#8221; and as Pryor writes, &#8220;[i]f this devout juror’s religious language alone proved his misconduct &#8216;beyond reasonable doubt,&#8217; &#8230; then the phrase &#8216;reasonable doubt&#8217; has changed its meaning.&#8221;
Pryor&#8217;s dissent is a tour de force, devoting pages to citations of religious texts from manifold faiths in order to demonstrate that &#8220;every prayer implies a hope that the prayer be answered.&#8221; Every juror takes a solemn oath, after all, and it is undisputed that the taking of such an oath — &#8220;an ancient tradition of ensuring honesty by invoking supernatural sanction on those who swear a false oath&#8221; — necessarily means that jurors are allowed to pray for guidance that they reach the correct outcome. And &#8220;if religious jurors may pray for God’s guidance, it follows that they must be entitled to receive God’s guidance, or at least to believe that they have received it.&#8221;
As with so many others facets of our legal and constitutional order that leftists routinely obfuscate and bastardize, the legal principles in play here are really not that complicated. In fact, Pryor expressly and unambiguously disavows the very line of argumentation that Cohen recklessly imputes to him (some internal citations omitted and emphasis bolded):
<blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 94">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
[A] juror who refuses or is unable to apply the law to the evidence for a spiritual reason is no less subject to dismissal than a juror who does the same thing for a secular reason. When it is apparent beyond a reasonable doubt that “‘religious inspiration’ prevent[s] [a] juror from considering the evidence at all,” United States v. Salvador, 740 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 1984), that juror may be dismissed, just like a juror who refuses to deliberate for any other reason. And when it is apparent beyond a reasonable doubt that a juror has “abandon[ed] his or her judgment [about the evidence] to what he or she perceives to be oracular signs,” that juror may be dismissed, just like a juror who decides to base her vote on any other nonevidential event, like the weather or the outcome of a coin flip.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 94">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
On the other hand, &#8220;[a]s long as the object of [a religious juror&#8217;s] prayers is an honest attempt to discern the facts from the evidence and to apply the law to those facts, the prayerful meditations of such a juror are no less valid a form of deliberation than any other.&#8221;
The Founders would have been positively aghast at the notion that this could somehow be controversial. That it is deemed controversial, in the year 2020, says everything one needs to know about the insidious secularization of contemporary society.
In short, there was nothing in a careful review of the trial court record to demonstrate that Juror 13 was incapable of assessing the evidence presented at trial. On the contrary, Juror 13 &#8220;told the district court time and time again that he was basing his decision on the evidence,&#8221; and only believed that the Holy Spirit spoke to him in the context of answering his prayers for guidance in reaching the right outcome after adducing the evidence. Those would be the same prayers for guidance that must be viewed in the context of Juror 13&#8217;s having sworn an oath, just like all his fellow jurors, to &#8220;truly try the case now before this court and render a true verdict, according to the law, evidence, and instructions of this court, so help [him] God.&#8221;
Secularists may not care for such niceties, but the reality is that, as constitutional law scholar Michael Stokes Paulsen has been fond of noting over the years, the Founding generation viewed the solemnity of oaths quite seriously. In fact, as I note in my <a href="https://fedsoc.org/contributors/josh-hammer">current Federalist Society</a> lecture on the constitutionality (or <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-646_d18e.pdf">lack thereof</a>) of stare decisis in constitutional interpretation, the gravity of the judicial oath helped undergird Chief Justice John Marshall&#8217;s iconic ruling in the landmark 1803 <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137#writing-USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO">Marbury v. Madison</a> decision:
<blockquote>Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support! &#8230;
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
</blockquote>
The reality is that those like Cohen — those who would fearmonger and alienate by putting &#8220;religious freedom&#8221; in scare-quotes — reek with dripping condescension for religious Americans. Cohen, a lawyer himself, is part of the &#8220;culture of legal discourse&#8221; that Pryor rightly describes as one that &#8220;often struggles to understand religious practice or to take religious perspectives seriously.&#8221; Cohen and his ilk, part of our most supercilious bicoastal ruling class clerisy, simply despise the rubes and yokels of flyover country. They despise the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-who-will-stand-for-the-forgotten-american">forgotten Americans</a> of the heartland. And they despise those members of &#8220;our credentialed judicial elite,&#8221; such as Pryor himself, who adamantly stand for those same forgotten Americans.
This is the narrative that motivates Andrew Cohen. And he will not allow such stubborn things as facts to get in the way of his preferred narrative.
</div>
</div>
</div>

Hand of witness on Bible in courtroom

HAMMER: Judge William Pryor Is Yet Again A Victim Of The Left’s War On Truth

Abortion

Christianity

Slate

A lawyer for infamous #MeToo perpetrator Harvey Weinstein was promptly shut down on Friday after requesting that Judge James Burke alter the jury selection process to ensure that it is “fair,” according to <a href="https://deadline.com/2020/01/harvey-weinstein-rape-trial-media-shut-out-jury-selection-motion-1202826722/">Deadline</a>. 
“Most people do not speak in front of the international media,” Arthur Aidala, an attorney for Weinstein, told Burke, according to <a href="https://variety.com/2020/film/news/harvey-weinstein-rape-trial-jury-selection-media-1203463038/">Variety</a>. “That’s not a normal case. I don’t think there is any other case in this building where a juror is going to say something and it’s going to be [covered by the media].” 
Aidala presented individual jury selection as a solution to the problem, to which Burke promptly responded “denied,” reports the news agency. After Aidala protested that Burke hadn’t even read his motion, which is 14 pages long, the judge remarked that he would read the letter but quipped that he is “generally familiar with this area of the law.”
According to the news agency, the media were “strictly told not to take any photographs of the potential jurors as they were whisked into the courtroom past reporters in the hallway.”
A copy of the motion obtained by <a href="https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/jury-sequest-motion-jan-10-2020-wm.pdf">Deadline</a> reveals that Aidala also requested to remove 32 potential jurors from the trial because they were in the room when another prospective juror told the court: “I have a close friend who had an encounter with the defendant in his hotel room, and I do not think I can be a fair juror in this case.”
In another legal maneuver, Damon Cheronis, another defense attorney for Weinstein, asked to have those jurors who heard a protest going on outside disqualified, saying that “it’s this type of atmosphere that makes it impossible for Mr. Weinstein to get a fair trial,” reports the <a href="https://apnews.com/f2c3963cf21b1d5bc7b32160e5b2b342">Associated Press</a>. 
“You’re probably not aware of this, but people chant and protest outside this courthouse all the time,” retorted Burke, according to the news agency. 
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/weinstein-request-for-new-judge-denied-medical-emergency-interrupts-proceedings">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported, jury deliberations began on Tuesday for the trial of former film producer and longtime Democratic Party mega-donor Harvey Weinstein. Throughout the week, the court has been sifting through hundreds of potential New Yorkers to find jurors who can judge the case solely on the merits of the evidence presented in court. 
Weinstein stands accused of forcing a woman to let him perform oral sex on her in 2006 and raping another woman, who has not been named, at a hotel in 2013. Due to a predatory sexual assault charge, Weinstein faces up to life in prison. 
Donna Rotunno, a lead attorney for Weinstein, has claimed that the charges against her client “don’t rise to the level of rape.”
The disgraced film producer has also been charged with sexual assault in Los Angeles for two instances dating to 2013. 
In a press conference on Monday, Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey said that prosecutors were requesting Weinstein’s bail be set at $5 million but acknowledged that he would not appear in court until his Manhattan trial had concluded. If convicted there, Weinstein faces upward of 28 years in state prison.

‘Denied’: Judge Promptly Shuts Down Latest Request From Weinstein’s Legal Team

James Burke, the New York Supreme Court Judge assigned to the Harvey Weinstein case, has denied a motion from Weinstein’s lawyers to recuse himself from the disgraced media mogul’s sexual assault trial. 
According to <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/01/09/harvey-weinstein-trial-day-4-judge-rejects-defense-motion/2845480001/">USA Today</a>, the defense lawyers had requested Burke recuse himself from the trial after scolding Weinstein on Tuesday for repeatedly using his cell phone in the courtroom. 
In a motion obtained by the news agency, Burke wrote that “a judge admonishing a defendant for repeatedly not following the rules of the courtroom does not show bias, but rather simply a judge maintaining order and decorum in his courtroom.&#8221; 
According to <a href="https://deadline.com/2020/01/harvey-weinstein-rape-trial-judge-rejection-jury-selection-1202825580/">Deadline</a>, “Burke ripped through the defense’s five-point motion calmly but like a sharp knife finally unsheathed.” 
“There is nothing inflammatory or biased for scolding a defendant for not complying with the court,” said Burke, reports the news agency. “I have in no way prejudged your client and gone to great lengths to ensure your client the fair trial he deserves.”
Jury selection for the case was also postponed after Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzzi “got something in her eye in court and it was causing pain,” said the New York district attorney’s office, as reported USA Today. Burke called the incident a “sudden borderline emergency” and told everyone to return on Friday. 
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/nyregion/harvey-weinstein-trial-jury-selection.html">The New York Times</a>, the process of jury selection, which is supposed to last about two weeks, has the court sifting through over 100 New Yorkers each day to try and “find 12 jurors and six alternates in Manhattan who can put aside what they have read or heard about Weinstein” and judge him “solely on the evidence produced in the courtroom.”
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-gets-stern-with-harvey-weinstein-threatens-to-revoke-bail-over-repeatedly-using-phone">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported, Weinstein has been accused of forcing a woman to let him perform oral sex on her in 2006 and raping an unnamed woman at a hotel in 2013. Prosecutors are also looking to charge Weinstein with predatory sexual assault, which could result in life in prison. 
According to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/as-weinstein-trial-begins-in-new-york-la-prosecutors-announce-back-to-back-sexual-assault-charges">The Daily Wire</a>, Donna Rotunno, a lead attorney for Weinstein, has claimed that the charges against her client in the Manhattan trial “don’t rise to the level of rape.”
Weinstein was also charged in Los Angeles on Monday for allegedly committing back-to-back sexual assaults almost seven years ago. 
“We believe the evidence will show that the defendant used his power and influence to gain access to his victims and then committed violent crimes against them,” said Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey in a press conference, according to The Daily Wire. “In the complaint we filed earlier today, we allege that the first sexual assault took place on February 18, 2013, in a Los Angeles hotel room.”
“We allege the second assault took place the next evening in a hotel suite in Beverly Hills. Each of these victims told at least one person about the assault in 2013. They reported the crimes to police in 2017,” said Lacey. 
Lacey has requested that Weinstein’s bail be set at $5 million, but also acknowledged that he will not be expected to appear in Los Angeles court until his Manhattan trial is concluded. If Weinstein is convicted on the Los Angeles charges, he faces up to 28 years in state prison.

Weinstein Request For New Judge Denied, Medical ‘Emergency’ Interrupts Proceedings

A stirring new friend-of-the-court (&#8220;amicus&#8221;) <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1323/127140/20191231111040123_Prolife%20African%20American%20Organizations%20Amicus%20Brief%20TO%20FILE.pdf">brief</a> in a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court abortion case, filed on behalf of numerous &#8220;African American pro-life organizations,&#8221; powerfully argues that there is a &#8220;a long history involving unqualified and uncredentialed abortion providers disproportionately harming black women.&#8221;
The case, which has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/legal-argument-louisiana-could-have-huge-josh-hammer">previously been covered</a> by The Daily Wire, is <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/june-medical-services-llc-v-gee-3/">June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. Gee</a>, and emanates out of the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The case involves a Louisiana law that requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The law was upheld by a divided Fifth Circuit panel. As described by <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/june-medical-services-llc-v-gee-3/">SCOTUSblog</a>, Gee presents the legal question of whether the statute &#8220;conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in <a href="https://casetext.com/case/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt">Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt</a>.&#8221; In the 2016 Hellerstedt case, a divided Supreme Court deemed a similar statute in Texas to be unconstitutional.
Prominent black pro-life leaders who signed on to the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1323/127140/20191231111040123_Prolife%20African%20American%20Organizations%20Amicus%20Brief%20TO%20FILE.pdf">amicus brief</a> include Ryan Bomberger, Alveda King (the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.), Dean Nelson, Catherine Davis, Stacy Washington, and numerous others. The brief&#8217;s argument summary opens with a bang:
<blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 15">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The struggle for racial equality is not over. The black community experiences a disproportionate share of abortions, often from doctors that do not have the same credentials as those who perform other forms of surgery. Until Act 620, Louisiana’s abortion clinics were exempt from the admitting privileges requirement that applies to other outpatient and ambulatory surgical centers in the state. This disparity is significant to black women, who make up the majority of abortion clinic patients and thus bear most of the known risks of abortion in Louisiana. These known risks are life-threatening to mothers.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 15">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The brief continues to tear at the heartstrings by recalling the tragic stories of many black women who have died from abortion complications when they visited Kermit Gosnell-esque shoddy, un-credentialed, largely unregulated abortion clinics. &#8220;These gruesome deaths are part of a long history involving unqualified and uncredentialed abortion providers disproportionately harming black women,&#8221; the brief continued. &#8220;By requiring admitting privileges, [Louisiana] also created a means for reports about individual doctors to be checked against a national database — for the benefit of all patients, of all races, equally.&#8221;
As has been frequently noted by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/eugenicists-abortion-group-director-says-the-quiet-part-out-loud-to-new-york-times-reporters">The Daily Wire</a>, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an avowed eugenicist and racist. Sanger “was an out and proud eugenicist who described the poor and immigrants as ‘human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders’ and ‘spawning … human beings who never should have been born’ in her book ‘Pivot of Civilization,&#8217;” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-removes-poster-racist-margaret-sanger-paul-bois">The Daily Wire</a> has reported.
Sanger also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-removes-poster-racist-margaret-sanger-paul-bois">wrote</a>: “The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”
In a thunderous recent separate writing in the Fifth Circuit case of <a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/18/18-60868-CV0.pdf">Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization v. Dobbs</a>, Judge James C. Ho (for whom, in the interest of full disclosure, I previously served as a law clerk) <a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/18/18-60868-CV0.pdf">wrote at length</a> on the racist history of abortion advocacy in the United States (footnotes omitted):
<blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 29">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Eugenics—the concept of improving the human race through control of the reproductive process—has frequently been associated with explicitly racist viewpoints. “Many eugenicists believed that the distinction between the fit and the unfit could be drawn along racial lines.” Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. &amp; Ky., Inc., 139 S. Ct. 1780, 1785 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring) (providing examples). Many eugenics programs, such as sterilization, explicitly targeted minorities—as the district court rightly acknowledged. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 349 F. Supp. 3d at 541 n.22 (noting that “Mississippi . . . sterilized six out of ten black women in Sunflower County at the local hospital—against their will”).
<div class="page" title="Page 29">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics.” Box, 139 S. Ct. at 1787 (Thomas, J., concurring). See also id. (“[A]bortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.”); id. at 1788 (discussing Margaret Sanger’s view that birth control would help control the African American population); id. at 1789 (“Support for abortion can . . . be found throughout the literature on eugenics.”); DAVID T. BEITO &amp; LINDA ROYSTER BEITO, BLACK MAVERICK: T.R.M. HOWARD’S FIGHT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC POWER 215 (2009) (noting that some African American civil rights leaders “fretted about the racist implications of abortion”). Indeed, among past abortion advocates were “some eugenicists [who] believed that abortion should be legal for the very purpose of promoting eugenics.” Box, 139 S. Ct. at 1789 (Thomas, J., concurring).
<div class="page" title="Page 30">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Advocates of eugenics might well celebrate, then, that abortion “has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.” Id. at 1790–91 (Thomas, J., concurring) (providing examples). See also id. at 1791 (noting that the current “abortion ratio . . . among black women is nearly 3.5 times the ratio for white women”); William McGurn, White Supremacy and Abortion, WALL ST. J. (Sept. 24, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-supremacy-and-abortion-11567460392 (discussing “why so many African-Americans, especially African-American women, have been leaders in the pro-life cause”); id. (“Catherine Davis of the Restoration Project . . . notes that the estimated 20 million black abortions since Roe v. Wade in 1973 are more than the entire African-American population in 1960.”).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>

U.S. Supreme Court

Black Pro-Life Leaders To SCOTUS: ‘Long History’ Of ‘Uncredentialed Abortion Providers Disproportionately Harming Black Women’

Blacks

Gosnell

Louisiana

Racism

After CNN reportedly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-covington-catholic-student-nick-sandmann-gets-settlement-from-cnn-after-275-million-lawsuit">settled for an undisclosed amount</a> in the defamation lawsuit from Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann, leftists on Twitter have expressed outrage, using the moment to bash Trump supporters and Nicholas Sandmann alike.
&#8220;The same Trump cultists celebrating Nick Sandmann’s victory against the corporate media outlets who smeared him with false accusations from social media mob bullying that generated fake clickbait news articles are strangely silent about all the liberals they falsely accused too,&#8221; tweeted Dr. Eugene Gu. 
&#8220;The same people who promote the QAnon conspiracy theory, which the FBI says is now a domestic terror threat, the Obama Birther conspiracy, the &#8216;Replacement Theory&#8217; don&#8217;t have much high ground to gloat about the Nick Sandmann settlement but when you are without shame&#8230;&#8221; tweeted CNN contributor Wajahat &#8220;Abu Khadija&#8221; Ali. &#8220;Nick Sandmann: future Republican congressman,&#8221; he continued.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The same Trump cultists celebrating Nick Sandmann’s victory against the corporate media outlets who smeared him with false accusations from social media mob bullying that generated fake clickbait news articles are strangely silent about all the liberals they falsely accused too.
&mdash; Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) <a href="https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/1214665525285908480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The same people who promote the QAnon conspiracy theory, which the FBI says is now a domestic terror threat, the Obama Birther conspiracy, the &quot;Replacement Theory&quot; don&#39;t have much high ground to gloat about the Nick Sandmann settlement but when you are without shame&#8230;
&mdash; Wajahat &quot;Abu Khadija&quot; Ali (@WajahatAli) <a href="https://twitter.com/WajahatAli/status/1214670577241337857?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Nick Sandmann: future Republican Congressman.
&mdash; Wajahat &quot;Abu Khadija&quot; Ali (@WajahatAli) <a href="https://twitter.com/WajahatAli/status/1214670146331193344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
One Twitter user <a href="https://twitter.com/r2kmoon2/status/1214670827452542976?s=20">even referred</a> to Nick Sandmann, a minor, as a &#8220;cockroach&#8221; that CNN dealt with: &#8220;Conservative news outlets and reporters are eating up this Nick Sandmann settlement like it&#8217;s a big win. CNN shrugged their shoulders and said &#8216;Let the little cockroach have this money. We&#8217;re good for it.'&#8221;
&#8220;In the Trump era, you can profit off publicly ridiculing Native Americas like Nick Sandmann or start your own clothing line after killing a child like Eddie Gallagher. Or murder journalists like Mohammad bin Salman &amp; you will have the full support of the POTUS. #TrumpIsADisgrace,&#8221; tweeted Twitter user &#8220;Bleeding Heart Liberal Marine.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
In the Trump era, you can profit off publicly ridiculing Native Americas like Nick Sandmann or start your own clothing line after killing a child like Eddie Gallagher. Or murder journalists like Mohammad bin Salman &amp; you will have the full support of the POTUS. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TrumpIsADisgrace?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TrumpIsADisgrace</a>
&mdash; Bleeding Heart Liberal Marine (@zaharako) <a href="https://twitter.com/zaharako/status/1214656771232415744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Conservatives on Twitter have been roundly celebrating the news, calling it a triumph of justice.
&#8220;This is the greatest news story of the year so far. Suleimani ain&#8217;t got nothin&#8217; on this,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1214660298440732672?s=20">tweeted</a> The Daily Wire&#8217;s Michael Knowles.
&#8220;Congrats to [CNN] for finally getting at least some of what they deserve for being the enemy of the people,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/yesnicksearcy/status/1214671197880717312?s=20">tweeted</a> actor Nick Searcy.
&#8220;Major victory against fake news,&#8221; tweeted Tim Pool.
&#8220;JUSTICE: CNN has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought against them by Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann They brutally smeared him &amp; tried to destroy his life Will the Media cover this admission of guilt as extensively as they covered the lies about Sandmann?&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1214637829768146944?s=20">tweeted</a> TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk. 
&#8220;Revenge is a dish best served cold,&#8221; tweeted Sebastian Gorka.
Sandmann was thrust into the national spotlight earlier in 2019 when mainstream news outlets like The Washington Post and CNN reported that he and several of his fellow students harassed a Native American man named Nathan Phillips while attending the March for Life in Washington, D.C. Phillips testified that the “Make America Great Again” hat-wearing boys blocked his path and taunted him with racial slurs, which appeared somewhat credible at first when viral video revealed the boys standing around Phillips, cheering as he banged a drum in front of Sandmann’s face. However, the narrative took a dramatic turn when other videos showed that Phillips approached the boys, who were at the time being taunted with racial slurs by the fringe black nationalist group Black Hebrew Israelites.
Without fully investigating the matter, news outlets largely ran with Phillips’ account of what happened, smearing the boys as racists. Sandmann arguably bore the brunt of the smears due to his face being featured so prominently in the video. In fact, media figures, such as CNN contributor Reza Aslan, <a href="https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2019/01/20/reza-aslan-who-cried-at-the-gillette-commercial-thinks-covington-catholic-hs-student-has-a-punchable-face/">suggested</a> he’d like to punch the 16-year-old in the face. “Honest question. Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?” Aslan tweeted at the time.
In response, Sandmann’s family sued several news outlets for defamation, targeting The Washington Post first for $250 million and accusing the outlet of “using its vast financial resources to enter the bully pulpit by publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles … to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the president.”

CNN World Headquarters

Leftists Enraged Over Nick Sandmann Defeating CNN. Conservatives Celebrate.

Covington Catholic High School

defamation

Media Bias

Nick Sandmann

Today in strange cat legal news:
North Carolina man Damon Fields is suing Gaston County, alleging his and his 16 house cats’ civil rights were violated.
His cats are named as complainants in the lawsuit, listed as “Boo Loo,” “Tony Tiger,” “Girlfriend Sara,” “Buh Buh Logan,” “Sillygirl Sally,” “Rascal Russell,” and others, The Charlotte Observer <a href="https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article238905783.html">reported</a>. The outlet reported that the 16 cats were seized in early November from Fields’ Cherryville home based on a complaint from a neighbor.
“The courthouse cat fight dates back to Nov. 5, when animal control officers responded to a neighbor’s complaint and searched Fields’ small ranch home, a home that Assistant Gaston County Attorney Sam Shames says reeked so badly of cat pee that investigators had to don masks before entering. Inside, Shames says, the officers tip-toed around ‘an incredibly large amount’ of cat poop. They left with 16 cats, including five kittens,” the outlet reported.
Fields was charged with 16 counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty, the Observer reported.
“The county also started a $20-a-day tab on the cost of housing, feeding and caring for each of the animals, a bill that reached more than $10,000 after 30 days,” the outlet reported.
Fields had the charges put on hold thanks to a deferred-prosecution plan that was set up in mid-December and approved by a Gaston County judge. The bill for the animals was also waived so long as Fields keeps no more than five cats in his home.
Fields was told to pick five cats to take home from the animal shelter and was required to have them sterilized. The remaining 11 would be put up for adoption, provided they passed medical inspections. Fields, 37, was also told at the time that animal control must be able to inspect his home at various times over the next six months, the Observer reported.
“Nobody is trying to put this guy in jail. That would not accomplish very much,” Shames said, according to the outlet. “We’re trying to get him the help that he needs.”
It appeared as though Fields had accepted the terms, but two weeks later his lawsuit appeared in Charlotte federal court.
“My family and I were denied the right to have a fair trial, before we were accused and taken and stuffed in a box/cell/cage,” Fields wrote in his complaint, which was reviewed by the Observer.
Fields is now demanding that all his cats be returned and that the county provide him $2,500 in damages “for the injuries and emotional damages to my babies and myself.” He also wants the legal system to acknowledge that cats have rights.
Fields said that his home was in the state in which it was found because he had been in the hospital following surgery after a car accident.
Shames told the Observer that its reporter “ruined” his day, as he was not expecting Fields to file such a lawsuit.
“I have never seen a cat listed as a party to a federal lawsuit. This case has a very unusual set of facts,” he said.
Cats seem to be showing up in a number of legal cases. In September, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/homeowner-hears-suspicious-noises-it-turns-out-be-ashe-schow">reported</a> on the detention of Bones, an outdoor cat who wandered into a neighbor&#8217;s home, making them think a burglar was in the house. And then there&#8217;s Miska, who&#8217;s human <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46453/seattle-has-been-fining-cat-thousands-dollars-yes-ashe-schow">filed a lawsuit</a> to try and get the thousands of dollars worth of fines levied against the roaming feline dropped.

A North Carolina Man And His 16 House Cats Are Suing Their County Over Alleged Civil Rights Violations

cats

North Carolina

There has to be a way to honor someone’s religious beliefs and respect members of the LGBT community at the same time. <a href="https://firstliberty.org/hensley/">Judge Dianne Hensley</a> thought she struck that balance. Instead, she received an official reprimand from the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct (“Commission”).
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, public officials who are authorized (but not required) to officiate wedding ceremonies have faced the same dilemma Dianne faced. Many, rather than risk compromising their religious convictions, simply stopped officiating all weddings. But some demand that justices of the peace like Dianne either officiate all marriages or find themselves disqualified from office altogether.
Dianne knew there had to be another way. What if she were able to reconcile her religious beliefs with serving the needs of her community?
She knows that her convictions prevent her from officiating gay weddings, but she also respectfully understands that many of her gay friends do not share that same conviction. If she, like most of the justices of the peace in McLennan County, Texas, stopped officiating weddings altogether, it is those without ready access to low-cost alternatives who suffer most.
Instead, she found a way to honor her religious convictions and make sure any gay couple who wanted to get married could get married without delay or additional cost. Her referral system worked brilliantly.
If, because of schedule or moral reasons, Dianne could not officiate a requested wedding, she referred them to those who could — including a nearby walk-in wedding chapel. As soon as the couple holding a marriage license could make the three-block walk to the walk-in wedding chapel, they could be married.
It would cost the same, too. In fact, Judge Hensley offered to pay from her own pocket the difference between her rate and that of the walk-in wedding chapel. But the walk-in wedding chapel simply agreed to reduce its rate, instead, for those referred by Judge Hensley’s office.
It worked well. Dianne’s religious convictions remained undisturbed and her referral efforts accounted for more low-cost gay weddings than perhaps any other public official in all of McLennan County. But then, without having received a complaint, the Commission launched an investigation. Rather than praise her proactive problem solving, they determined she had to be reprimanded.
Dianne received a “Public Warning” for trying to honor her religious beliefs while respecting members of the gay community. It’s understandable why many have strong feelings about gay marriage, but surely we should be able to agree that justices of the peace like Dianne Hensley should not have their careers ruined for following both the rules of their faith and the law alike.
Surely in 2020, we can find a way to protect those with religious beliefs that prevent them from officiating weddings with which they morally disagree, while also accommodating the marriage of anyone lawfully allowed to wed. At the very least, no state agency should be punishing Dianne for her reasonable effort to reconcile her religious beliefs while meeting the needs of her community.
In fact, in a lawsuit we at First Liberty Institute filed in defense of Dianne, we argue that the Commission’s disciplinary actions violate the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There’s no compelling justification for the commissioners to punish a justice of the peace who, rather than cease officiating weddings entirely, accommodated more low-cost same-sex marriages than perhaps anyone in her entire local area.
Judge Hensley also hopes to continue using her referral system, even though she’s not required to officiate weddings at all. More than that, justices of the peace and other elected officials with the ability to officiate weddings are watching, hoping for a way to honor the distinctiveness of their faith while also respecting those in the gay community who wish to be married.
Is the only option really more reprimands? More penalties? More fines? Why must it either be officiate no weddings, officiate all weddings, or be disqualified from office because of your religious convictions, when there is a reasonable way to respect everyone involved?
Rather than punish her, the Commission ought to have recognized Dianne’s effort to balance her faith with the needs of her community — a type of basic, human, and much needed fairness missing in much of America today.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

judge gavel

DYS: Religious Liberty Must Be Respected In The Era Of Same-Sex Marriage

Homosexuality

Same-Sex Marriage

Texas

As has <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/29/how-liberals-are-allowing-anti-semitism-to-flourish/">finally </a>been noticed by the mainstream media, anti-Semitism in America has harrowingly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-hammer-tipping-point-liz-wheeler-why-no-one-daily-wire">been on the rise</a> over the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-york-times-just-made-stunning-admission-about-ben-shapiro">past couple</a> of years. While the first two lethal incidents occurred in synagogues in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-we-cling-tree-life-ben-shapiro">Pittsburgh</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-jews-simply-must-arm-themselves-now-josh-hammer">Southern California</a>, the recent upsurge of violent Jew-hatred has been disproportionately centered around the broader <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/phillips-a-year-of-rampant-anti-semitism-in-new-york-city">New York area</a>. The epidemic reached its bloody December apogee first in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jersey-city-shootout-assailants-kill-police-officer-3-orthodox-jews">Jersey City, New Jersey</a>, and later in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-mass-stabbing-attack-reported-at-new-york-synagogue">Monsey, New York</a>.
Monsey is not terribly far from where I grew up, and has long been home to a sizable Orthodox Jewish community. The town is part of Rockland County, New York, which has the <a href="https://www.ny.gov/counties/rockland">largest Jewish population per capita</a> of any county in the United States.
Alas, despite this, Monsey and some of its surrounding towns in Rockland have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/29/county-gop-ad-saying-jewish-candidate-is-plotting-takeover-is-slammed-anti-semitic/">long been victimized</a> by noxious anti-Semitism. I would know, because <a href="https://firstliberty.org/about-us/">First Liberty Institute</a>, the nation’s largest nonprofit law firm solely dedicated to the protection of religious liberty of all and where I serve in an <a href="https://firstliberty.org/team/josh-hammer/">of counsel</a> capacity, has long been on the frontlines of this particular battle.
Specifically, in Airmont, New York, which directly neighbors Monsey, village officials have deployed discriminatory zoning tactics to prevent an Orthodox Jewish day school — Central UTA of Monsey — from peaceably operating. First Liberty helped <a href="https://firstliberty.org/cases/central-uta/">file a federal lawsuit</a> on behalf of Central UTA; for that matter, we have also helped file a <a href="https://firstliberty.org/cases/airmont/">similar lawsuit</a> on behalf of several individual Orthodox Jewish residents of Airmont. Overall, for decades now, the village of Airmont has systemically discriminated against the Orthodox community living there. Local officials in the Airmont/Monsey area of Rockland County have brazenly and shamelessly attempted to prevent their Orthodox Jewish population from actually practicing Judaism.
But the connection hits even closer to home. In our capacity representing the Central UTA Jewish day school, we at First Liberty directly represent school administrator Rabbi Moshe Rottenberg, who is the cousin of Rabbi Chaim Rottenberg — the very <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/nyregion/monsey-synagogue-stabbing-anti-semitic.html">owner of the home</a> that was infamously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-mass-stabbing-attack-reported-at-new-york-synagogue">machete-attacked</a> last month toward the end of Chanukah.
Small world indeed.
To date, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has not officially taken action in the Central UTA case besides collect relevant information. To DOJ&#8217;s great credit, however, it did file an official &#8220;Statement of Interest&#8221; in our other Airmont case, regarding oppressive and discriminatory zoning laws. The United States &#8220;wishes to refute any suggestion &#8230; that the United States has previously provided its imprimatur to or otherwise endorsed the legality of&#8221; Airmont&#8217;s discriminatory zoning ordinances, DOJ wrote in a filing from this past September. The United States &#8220;believes that it is important &#8230; for the [district court] to have a full understanding of the troubled history of Airmont’s zoning code, its impact on Hasidic residents, and the numerous legal actions against [Airmont] that have been necessary in the past,&#8221; the DOJ filing continued.
Good for Attorney General <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-america-is-better-off-for-having-bill-barr">Bill Barr</a> and for DOJ. In <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/phillips-a-year-of-rampant-anti-semitism-in-new-york-city">sharp contrast</a> to the blithe aloofness of both New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Barr has taken official action to convey his interest in the rampant anti-Semitism occurring in Rockland County, New York.
For the Central UTA litigation, we are currently awaiting the trial judge to rule on a handful of motions. But as someone serving in an of counsel capacity at a law firm representing the cousin of the homeowner of the house that was brutally machete-attacked barely over a week ago, I can personally attest to one thing: Jew-hatred in heavily Jewish Rockland County, New York is hardly new. The only thing that is new is the mainstream media attention such anti-Semitism has suddenly been receiving — and, perhaps, whether local and statewide politicians might decisively act to stop this bigotry.

Police Jews Monsey

HAMMER: Anti-Semitism Around Monsey, New York Is Not New. Here’s How I Know.

Andrew Cuomo

Anti-Semitism

Bill de Blasio

Department of Justice

Judaism

New York

William Barr

On Tuesday, Don McSpadden, the state court judge assigned to the paternity case concerning Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden, recused himself without explanation.
&#8220;In the recusal document, obtained by The Gazette, McSpadden didn&#8217;t provide specific details about his departure, and only deferred to the &#8216;Administrative Plan of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit,'&#8221; <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-arkansas-paternity-case-judge-abruptly-recuses-himself">Fox News</a> reported.
The paternity case will now be assigned to Circuit Judge Holly Meyer, according to the administrative plan.
&#8220;McSpadden reportedly ordered all income records from Biden and Roberts over the past five years. He also ordered that the financial information be kept under seal and only be available to the attorneys involved in the case,&#8221; Fox noted.
As reported by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/firm-names-hunter-biden-in-156-counterfeiting-scheme-biden-lawyers-respond">The Daily Wire</a> on Thursday, McSpadden&#8217;s recusal comes as Florida-based private investigation firm D&amp;A seeks to intervene in the case, claiming Biden is caught up in a $156 million &#8220;counterfeiting scheme.&#8221;
<div>
In a <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/441351782/MOTION-to-INVERVENE-by-D-a-Investigations-Filed-12-27-2019">motion to intervene</a> filed on December 27, D&amp;A said it provided attorneys for Lunden Alexis Roberts, a woman who says she has a child Biden (and was seemingly confirmed by a paternity test), with “access to [Hunter Biden’s] bank account records subject of known felonies including fraud and counterfeiting.”
</div>
According to the firm, “bank account records bear exhibit identifier(s) known by [Hunter Biden] as the subject of criminal investigation(s) both adjudicated and ongoing, of which he is a party to,” adding that the bank records allegedly “provide the source and destination bank account numbers of Burisma Holdings Limited, PrivatBank, Bank of China, [Hunter Biden’s] business partners, Rosement Seneca Bohai,” among others.
Biden served as a board member for Burisma Holdings, one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, as his father served as VP of the United States, and reportedly raked in more than $50,000 a month. Aside from Biden’s dubious qualifications, Burisma paid $3.4 million to Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC, a company headed by Hunter’s business partner Devon Archer, according to a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hunter-biden-ukraine-idUSKBN1WX1P7">Reuters</a> report published in October.
Biden’s legal team filed a <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/441351808/BIDEN-MOTION-TO-STRIKE">motion to strike</a> the D&amp;A claims, framing the accusations as a “scheme by a non-party simply to make scandalous allegations in the pending suit to gain media attention without any material or pertinent material,” according to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-bank-records-counterfeit-scheme-claims">Fox News</a>.
Biden apparently fathered Roberts&#8217; child and, according to the mother, has not played any part in the child&#8217;s life. Biden “had no involvement in the child’s life since the child’s birth, never interacted with the child, never parented the child,” and “could not identify the child out of a photo lineup,” Fox noted.
In November, candidate Biden was asked by Fox News reporter Peter Doocy to comment on his son making him &#8220;a grandfather again.&#8221;
“I’m wondering if you have a comment on this report and court filing from Arkansas that your son Hunter made you a grandfather again,” Doocy asked Biden during a press gaggle.
“No. That’s a private matter. You’re a good man. You’re a good man. Classy,” the former VP answered, visibly irritated.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/firm-names-hunter-biden-in-156-counterfeiting-scheme-biden-lawyers-respond">Firm Names Hunter Biden In $156 Million Counterfeiting Scheme. Biden Lawyers Respond.</a>

Hunter Biden

Judge In Hunter Biden Paternity Case Abruptly Steps Down

Joe Biden

Menu