Because of course he did….  Both the prosecutor Nathan Wade and District Attorney Fani Willis were on the cusp of losing control of their fabricated case against Donald Trump, because a hearing was scheduled for tomorrow where uncomfortable questions would have been asked during under oath testimony of Nathan Wade.

The duo will still have to face questions from the trial judge in the criminal case, where the evidence of their relationship first surfaced, but they both avoided devastating questioning in the civil case by settling the Wade divorce and getting the divorce attorney to back down.   Their demanded testimony in the divorce case held massive ramifications for the criminal case in Fulton County.

We can only imagine the scope of the successful divorce terms for Wade’s soon to be ex-wife, Joycelyn Mayfield Wade, as the financial leverage created by this civil case against Nathan, and ultimately DA Willis, was enormous.

(Washington Post) – The lead prosecutor in the Georgia election interference case against former president Donald Trump and his allies settled a contentious divorce dispute on Tuesday, canceling a hearing scheduled for Wednesday morning that could have included testimony about allegations of an improper relationship between him and Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis.

Nathan Wade had been expected to be questioned under oath Wednesday morning about his finances — including his income as a special prosecutor in the Trump case and his spending, including his purchase of airline tickets for himself and Willis in October 2022 and April 2023.

(more…)

There’s always this interesting debate within Republican circles about the State of Texas.  The essential question is always about whether Texas is really ‘conservative’, like Ken Paxton, or whether Texas is really more akin to approved Bush type Republicans like Greg Abbott and Chip Roy.

The consistently debated issue surfaced most recently with the attempted impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton; which was, not coincidentally, led by the Bush clan of Republicans within the state.

A recent poll from the University of Houston may provide some data for an answer.  [DATA HERE] Approximately 1 out of 5 (20%) of the state Republican electorate would support a nomination of Nikki Haley.  The other 80% support Donald Trump.

[Data Here]

However, it should be noted that while “Bush Republicans” represent about 20% of the Texas Republican voting base, the “Bush Republicans” represent approximately one-half of all statewide elected Republican officials.  This 50/50 Republican split is very similar to the distribution curve we see in Washington DC.

University of Houston – […]  In the March 2024 Texas Republican presidential primary election, Donald Trump holds a more than 60 percentage point lead over Nikki Haley, 80% to 19%.

Trump’s vote intention is highest among likely Republican primary voters whose highest level of educational attainment is a high school degree or less (91%) or a two-year degree or some college (87%) and who are a born-again Christian (88%) and who are Latino (86%). (more)

(more…)

The leftist-media claim a 5-year sentence was harsh.  However, in terms of the violations of privacy and law the sentence was a mere slap on the wrist.

Charles Littlejohn (38) previously pleaded guilty to stealing and leaking the tax returns of Donald Trump and approximately 2,000 other high-profile people.  The tax returns were given to The New York Times and ProPublica, who published the contents of 152 individual tax returns.

Charles Littlejohn (right) and his attorney.

WASHINGTON – A former IRS consultant was sentenced to five years in prison for leaking former President Donald Trump’s tax returns as well as the filings of thousands of other wealthy people to the news media.

A district court judge on Monday agreed with the Justice Department that Charles Littlejohn, 38, deserved the maximum statutory sentence for what she called “egregious” crimes.

Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden nominee to the bench, focused on Littlejohn’s decision to release Trump’s filings, which Reyes called “an attack on our constitutional democracy.”

(more…)

In his own words, Senator James Lankford says if President Trump was president today the border crisis would not exist, because the existing law would be enforced.  Simultaneous to this, the same Senator Lankford says the new law he proposes will create significant border enforcement.

If the executive branch can ignore the current border enforcement law (they can and do), what makes Lankford believe new legislation will not be ignored by the same executive branch (they will)?  This non-pretending reality frames the essential point:  the element of “enforcement” is not within the legislative branch, so the entire effort is a moot exercise. WATCH:

Margaret Brennan is especially annoying in this interview.

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by Oklahoma Republican James Lankford. He’s in Oklahoma City this morning. Good morning to you, sir, it has taken you two months to get this bipartisan deal. Do you have the support of your fellow Republicans to actually vote this through?

SEN. JAMES LANKFORD: Well, actually, I wish it would have taken only two months. It’s taken about four months to be able to go through this, we started in October. Everyone’s looking to be able to read the bill at this point. That’s the key aspect, we’re working on the final aspects of it to try to be able to get it out. So everyone can get a chance to read it. Right now, they’re all functioning off of internet rumors of what’s in the bill, and many of them are false. So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it. And to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes and how we handle our immigration system, and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That’s been the simple request of Americans, whether you’re Republican, Democrat, or independent, people just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we’re not promoting illegal immigration. And that’s what we’ve seen in the last three years.

(more…)

Senators Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), James Lankford (R-OK), and Chris Murphy (D-CT) have reportedly put the finishing touches on their “bipartisan border deal” that will be tied together with other Senate priorities to permit billions more in funding for Ukraine.

Keep in mind the billions for Ukraine is the goal here; the “border security deal” is the mechanism to deflect attention and give the customary UniParty illusion of justification.

There’s no reason to pretend this is anything of substance; even a cursory review of the media narrative shows just how insufferable this nonsense really is.

First, the motive….

WASHINGTON – […] Linking money for Ukraine to the border, one of the most politically charged issues in Congress, was viewed as a gamble by Senate leadership but necessary to satisfy conservatives in the Republican-led House.

Next up… just how stupid they think we are…

[…]  The expulsion powers granted to the president are similar to Title 42, the authority former President Donald Trump relied upon to turn away immigrants during the COVID-19 health crisis and that President Joe Biden ended last year.  The new powers come with a penalty for repeat offenders, barring immigrants caught attempting to cross the border twice from entering for a year.

The expulsion powers in the new legislation are the same as the currently existing expulsion powers that are not enforced.  And, if the illegal alien gets caught twice coming across, they have to wait a year for their third or next attempt.

But wait, it gets better.

(more…)

Rudy Giuliani brought up some good points that were surreptitiously also noted by Victor Davis Hanson.   As Giuliani noted in an interview with Newsmax, the core elements of the E Jean Carroll claims never made any sense.

Specifically, Carroll couldn’t even put a date or YEAR on her claims against Donald Trump, but that really didn’t matter in a civil case where the New York state legislature literally wrote a new law that permitted the lawsuit against Donald Trump.  WATCH:

Victor Davis Hanson makes some of the same points, only with a little more detail:

VDH – […] “The civil suit serves as a mere preview of four additional leftwing criminal prosecutions, leftwing judges, and leftwing juries to come—all on charges that would never had been filed if Trump either had not run for president or been a liberal progressive.

Yet here we are.

The E. Jean Carroll case is the most baffling of all five. She, the alleged victim, did not remember even the year in which the purported sexual assault took place, nearly three decades ago. Observers have pointed out dozens of inconsistencies in her story.

It was never clear what were the preliminaries that supposedly (Trump denies meeting her) led both, allegedly, willingly to retreat together to a department store dressing room, where during normal business hours the alleged violence took place.

Moreover, the sexual assault complaint came forward decades post facto—and only after Trump was running for and then president.

(more…)

Texas Governor Greg Abbott calls in for an interview about the federal -vs- state conflict on border security.  Gov. Greg Abbott says ten other states have already sent national guard to the Texas border, and others will follow. Abbott says he is “prepared” for a conflict with federal authorities.

Following the Abbott interview, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joins Carlson in the larger legal discussion. WATCH:

.

(more…)

Liz Cheney has come out in favor of Nikki Haley remaining in the race to represent the best foreign policy interests of those in DC who love using the military to kill people for profit.

(Via Daily Mail) – […] Cheney was asked about Haley’s bid during an interview with Pod Save America’s Daniel Pfeiffer and Jon Favreau, which was released Friday morning. 

‘I hope she stays in the race,’ Cheney said. ‘As long as she has to, certainly through Super Tuesday. I think that we’re in a situation where only two states have voted and you had something like 35 percent, I believe, of Republicans coming out of the voting in New Hampshire saying they would never vote for Donald Trump.’  (read more)

(more…)

E. Jean Carroll is 50 shades of crazy. This New York civil jury is just as nutty. Carroll was awarded a ridiculous $83.3 million in damages for her civil defamation lawsuit against President Trump.

The goofball advice columnist and her lawfare team convinced a prior New York jury that President Trump sexually assaulted her inside a department store fitting room.

President Trump had already left court today when the verdict was read.  The jurors – five men and four women – delivered their decision after three hours of deliberations. Carroll’s Lawfare crew had originally been seeking at least $24 million in damages.

NEW YORK – A jury ordered Donald Trump on Friday to pay $83.3 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll over defamatory remarks he made about her while he was president in response to her rape accusation.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled last fall that Trump defamed Carroll by saying in 2019 that he had never met her and that her book, in which she accused him of having raped her in the dressing room of a luxury department store in the mid-1990s, “should be sold in the fiction section.” (read more)

(more…)

In this brief video below {Direct Rumble Link Here} Former Blackrock portfolio manager, Ed Dowd, explains why every last remnant of human freedom depends on mass resistance to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). “Once the central bank digital currency is linked to all your credit cards and bank accounts, then social controls can be implemented. If you’re a dissenter like me, talking about truth, they shut you down.” WATCH:

I know at first blush a lot of this CBDC discussion seems esoteric, difficult to understand, and there are a lot of other issues happening simultaneously in the background. However, if you contemplate the biggest threat on this overarching power arc of western government, you arrive to understand how serious this seemingly opaque issue really is.

I first started to deep dive research into these CBDC datapoints when the Russian sanctions were triggered. You see, nothing about them really makes sense from the way they were structured; additionally, the intensity of the drive to make the sanctions the tip of the western spear was just too pointed, something about it didn’t make sense. That’s what took me to dig deep into the impact and realize nothing said about these financial sanctions makes sense when compared against their actual irrelevance {Go Deep}.

When the White House first started openly saying the Biden administration was reviewing how to implement CBDC’s, yes THAT Announcement ACTUALLY HAPPENED, September 2022, then things from a research perspective really started to get serious. “While the U.S. has not yet decided whether it will pursue a CBDC, the U.S. has been closely examining the implications of, and options for, issuing a CBDC.”  Whenever the U.S. govt says they’re “undecided,” pay close attention.

(more…)