Month: June 2024

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the DOJ’s use of 1512(c)(2), obstruction of an official proceeding, in cases against the January 6 riot defendants. Obstruction charges have also been made against the former President Donald Trump.

The justices ruled 6–3 that in order to charge defendants with obstruction, there must be proof that they tried to tamper with or destroy documents. Not all of those involved in J6 have those qualifications.

The case focused on the former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer, who had been indicted for disrupting Congress’ certification of the election at the Capitol. He is among around 350 people who have been charged with obstruction. 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s opinion, joined by the conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas, and also by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, responsible for J6 prosecutions, stated that individuals convicted of or charged with obstruction will not be absolved entirely due to the ruling. According to prosecutors, each defendant also faces additional felony or misdemeanor charges, or both.

According to the Associated Press, “For around 50 people who were convicted, obstruction was the only felony count, prosecutors said. Of those, roughly two dozen who still are serving their sentence are most likely to be affected by the ruling.”

As of now, it is still unclear how this decision may impact the case against the former president in Washington. Special counsel Jack Smith has, however, stated Trump’s charges will not be affected.

The post SCOTUS Rules on J6 Case appeared first on The American Conservative.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine, fundamentally altering the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies.

The ruling, which came in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al., marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the branches of government.

The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, has long been a source of contention. It granted deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, effectively allowing unelected bureaucrats to make laws through their regulatory actions.

However, by a 6-3 majority, the SCOTUS has now declared that such power is unconstitutional and goes against the principles of democratic governance.

“Chevron is overruled,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”

Chief Justice Roberts, emphasized that the role of interpreting laws and making policy decisions should rest with elected representatives in Congress, not with unaccountable agency officials. The ruling has been hailed by critics of regulatory overreach as a victory for the separation of powers and the rule of law.

SCOTUS Blog reported:

Chevron, Roberts explains, “defies the command of” the Administrative Procedure Act, the law governing federal administrative agencies, “that the reviewing court–not the agency whose action it reviews–is to decide all relevant questions of law and interpret … statutory provisions. It requires a court to ignore, not follow, the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA.”

Chevron’s presumption that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations of authority by Congress to federal agencies “is misguided,” Roberts explains, “because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

Roberts notes that today’s decision does “not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful–including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself–are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology.”

The decision comes with the concurrence of Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, who added their perspectives, underscoring the constitutional necessity of judicial independence in statutory interpretation.

“Justice Neil Gorsuch, the son of a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator, wrote separately to call Chevron Deference “a grave anomaly when viewed against the sweep of historic judicial practice,” according to CNN.

“The 1984 decision, he said, “undermines core rule-of-law values ranging from the promise of fair notice to the promise of a fair hearing,” adding that it “operated to undermine rather than advance reliance interests, often to the detriment of ordinary Americans,” the news outlet added.

This is a massive win for the Constitution. This is a massive win for the American people.

Leftist Laurence Tribe wrote, “Chevron is now overruled. The administrative state just died. The imperial judiciary joins the imperial presidency, relegating Congress to a secondary role except when it legislates with unrealistic specificity and foresight.”

Chevron is now overruled. The administrative state just died. The imperial judiciary joins the imperial presidency, relegating Congress to a secondary role except when it legislates with unrealistic specificity and foresight.

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) June 28, 2024

“For far too long, the Chevron doctrine has allowed D.C. bureaucrats to go unchecked. Today’s SCOTUS ruling restores decision-making powers back into the hands of lawmakers who answer to the American people, not unelected Biden bureaucrats,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis wrote.

For far too long, the Chevron doctrine has allowed D.C. bureaucrats to go unchecked. Today’s SCOTUS ruling restores decision-making powers back into the hands of lawmakers who answer to the American people, not unelected Biden bureaucrats. pic.twitter.com/GKhnXl1DQt

— Senator Cynthia Lummis (@SenLummis) June 28, 2024

“Goodbye Chevron deference, hello again, Constitution! Unelected bureaucrats cannot make the law, and our courts can once again protect the American people from them,” said Sen. Mike Lee.

Goodbye Chevron deference, hello again, Constitution!

Unelected bureaucrats cannot make the law, and our courts can once again protect the American people from them. https://t.co/eW7mAqSehf

— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 28, 2024

Ron De Santis weighed in, writing, “The Chevron doctrine distorted the constitutional separation of powers and helped create the unaccountable, bloated administrative state. This decision is a necessary corrective to decades of wayward constitutional jurisprudence but is, by itself, not enough to restore the proper roles of the federal government’s three branches, which will require Congress to take its obligations under Article I of the Constitution more seriously by using its law-making and spending authority to rein in the federal bureaucracy.”

The Chevron doctrine distorted the constitutional separation of powers and helped create the unaccountable, bloated administrative state.

This decision is a necessary corrective to decades of wayward constitutional jurisprudence but is, by itself, not enough to restore the… https://t.co/AbEw8t3s03

— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) June 28, 2024

Read the ruling here.

The post BREAKING: Chevron is Gone — SCOTUS Rules Unelected Bureaucrats Do Not Have the Power to Create Laws appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Supreme Court significantly curtailed the power of executive agencies and their unelected bureaucrats Friday with a 6–3 ruling of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the decision of the 1984 Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council.

The “Chevron deference” allowed federal agencies to interpret any ambiguity in laws. Chevron has been criticized by conservatives for empowering unelected bureaucrats to interpret laws without oversight from either Congress or the Courts (who constitutionally make and interpret laws).

Conservatives have also criticized Chevron for allowing Congress to ignore its responsibilities by leaving clarification of legal ambiguities to unelected administrative agencies. This aspect was highlighted by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) in a celebratory X thread about the Loper Bright ruling.

The court split along standard ideological lines, with all six conservatives, including the more moderate Chief Justice John Roberts, ruling to overturn Chevron while all three liberal ruled against it.

The post SCOTUS Overturns Chevron in Huge Victory for Conservative Jurisprudence appeared first on The American Conservative.

This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire

By Susan Crabtree
Real Clear Wire

Amid the Democrats’ chaotic meltdown over President Biden’s Thursday night debate performance, one image stood out: A shrewd observer on X.com posted a video of a baseball pitcher just off the field dramatically engaged in big, arm-circle warm-ups.

“Gavin stretching in the bullpen,” the observer commented.

The pithy remark itself wasn’t too much of a stretch. Gavin Newsom, in fact, was already on deck, albeit figuratively. Before the debate, the photogenic 56-year-old California governor with the slick hair and silver tongue worked the pre-debate spin room as Biden’s top surrogate. And, after the year-long rumors that he could step in to replace the president as the nominee if Biden’s deteriorating health or performance should force Biden to step aside, Newsom had mastered his response to the persistent questions about it.

Asked about whether Biden should step down, Newsom appeared irritated. “Do you think it’s unfounded?” an MSNBC reporter asked him.

“I think it’s unhelpful – and I think it’s unnecessary,” Newsom replied. “We’ve got to keep our head high, and as I say, we’ve got to have the back of this president. You don’t turn your back because of one performance. What kind of party does that?”

Talking to reporters in the post-debate “spin room,” Newsom maintained that his party “could not be more wholly united behind Biden” and argued the president should not step aside. Despite Newsom’s protests, the intra-party conversations already had shifted – possibly irrevocably.

“Biden managed to change the narrative tonight – he sunk his campaign,” declared CNN’s Chris Wallace.

Right after the debate, MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace acknowledged that frank conversations were occurring among party leaders and inside Biden’s circle about whether the president should “be in this race tomorrow morning.”

One senior Democratic operative told RCP he and his colleagues were rattled to the core and expressed concern that even the cable network most sympathetic to the president was discussing whether the party should replace him on the ticket.

The person next in line wasn’t having any of it. Like Newsom, Vice President Kamala Harris swatted away questions about Biden’s performance – and wouldn’t go near talk of succession.

“Yes, it was a slow start, but it was a strong finish,” she said. “And what became very clear through the course of the debate is that [the president] is fighting on behalf of the American people. On substance, on policy, on performance, Joe Biden is extraordinarily strong.”

But the doubts were not so easily dispelled, and even MSNBC engaged in a post-debate discussion about a contested Democratic Party convention.

Referring to the convention math needed to replace him, anchor Joy Reid said someone sent her the party nomination rules.

Consistent Trump critic Nicole Wallace confirmed: “The rules are circulating.”

Yet, changing horses this late in the race, with just five months left, is a daunting, if not impossible, task. Party rules essentially prohibit it without the nominee’s consent, and Biden has repeatedly sworn off stepping down. Moreover, there’s no smooth path to doing so even if the party can coalesce around an alternative – and no consensus over who would play the role of party savior.

The most immediate problem is that polls show Kamala Harris’ job approval ratings are no better than Biden’s. Bypassing her for, say, Newsom would face an obvious obstacle: How could the modern Democratic Party, which champions diversity, equity, and inclusion, cast aside a woman whose heritage is African American and Asian? No matter how telegenic and articulate he may be, the intra-party critique writes itself: Gavin Newsom is a privileged white male from the same state – and same city – as Kamala Harris. Are the Democratic delegates really going to cast her aside because Biden is too old?

Moreover, any switcheroo now would inevitably provoke charges from the Democratic Party’s liberal base that party elites were overturning the results against the voters’ will. Intra-party resentment is still lingering from the 2016 primaries when supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders argued that the party leaders were rigging the election in favor of Hillary Clinton. In 2024, Biden captured nearly all of the primary delegates – 99%.

Still, rules do exist for switching nominees if the party’s nominee is incapacitated or opts to step aside. Biden may decide it’s time to do so, considering the constant second-guessing he will inevitably endure if he remains on the trail. He would, of course, have the option of serving out the final months of his term in the White House, as Lyndon Johnson did in 1968.

Theoretically, at least, a rancorous intra-party battle could take place at the August convention in Chicago, though it could set off a free-for-all among Democrats.

Along with Newsom and Harris, possible contenders circulating Thursday night include Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. If Michelle Obama should suddenly shed her long-held distaste for partisan politics, Democratic leaders might jump at the chance to coronate the dynamic former first lady as the rightful heir to the Obama legacy. Such a choice would also help blunt charges that the party ditched Harris, a black woman, over her poor approval ratings.

In such a free-wheeling and desperate political environment, anything is possible, and deals can be made. Months before the debate, reports surfaced that Harris was open to succeeding Newsom as governor if Biden lost the election and she was out of a job. Party leaders could present that as another option, although dangling a future Supreme Court or attorney general position may be more enticing for Harris.

Harris and Newsom, often considered to have a “sibling rivalry” relationship of sorts, operated in the same political circles and shared the same political consultant. (They also have the same mentor in former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown.) The two made a pact many years ago. Harris decided to pursue an open Senate seat, and Newsom chose to run for governor.

The two ambitious pols have also strived to demonstrate there’s no animosity between them – at least on the surface. For instance, Newsom asked Harris to administer his oath of office when he was sworn in as lieutenant governor for the second time in 2015.

However, that cordial détente could disintegrate at any moment if the party determines Biden needs to be replaced, and they are both instantly jockeying for the job.

“It’s been a cold war so far this election for sure,” Rob Stutzman, who served as chief of staff to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, told RCP last week, noting that it could quickly become a hot war if the two have to vie against one another. “If Biden loses, there is a lot of speculation that Harris will come back and run to succeed Gavin versus trying to run for president.”

Considering the fraught political dynamics of two California Democrats best positioned to replace Biden, party leaders could theoretically decide to sidestep that problem altogether and set up 2016 instead of a 2020 rematch.

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker predicted in early June that worries about Biden’s age would galvanize support for replacing him – and suggested Hillary Clinton as a prime candidate.

A few days before the debate, Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate’s No. 2 Democratic leader, poured cold water on that scenario.

“No, I don’t think [Hillary Clinton is] likely to run again,” he told The Hill newspaper.

But Durbin, at the time, also called stories about Biden stepping aside this summer or fall “bizarre.”

What a difference a few days and a debate debacle make.

The post Can Democrats Replace Biden? It’s Complicated. appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In a bizarre and troubling incident at the Vermont Statehouse, Republican Representative Mary Morrissey has been caught on video pouring water into the bag of Democratic Representative Jim Carroll. This act, which occurred multiple times over several months, has sparked a significant ethics investigation and widespread condemnation from both sides of the political aisle.

The controversy came to light when Rep. Carroll noticed his bag was frequently soaked and suspected foul play. To catch the culprit, Carroll set up a spy camera, which eventually captured Morrissey in the act. The videos, released to the media, show Morrissey approaching Carroll’s bag, which was hung outside his committee room, and deliberately pouring water into it.

GOP lawmaker secretly pours water into rival’s bag for FIVE MONTHS https://t.co/OJn42NAbMf via @MailOnline

— Sister of Greg Gunn (@SistrofGregGunn) June 20, 2024

In one video dated March 23, Morrissey can be seen wearing a gray suit jacket as she nonchalantly pours water into Carroll’s bag.

A second video from March 26 shows her repeating the act, this time dressed in a rose-colored jacket and scarf. The videos, although not showing her face, clearly identify Morrissey by her distinctive long gray hair.

if you cant trust Rep. Mary Ann Morrissey in a coat closet how can you trust her to represent you? Please call for her resignation https://t.co/JpvafwsDOY

— Sophia Fox (@pcolagatorgirl) June 20, 2024

This behavior has left many lawmakers in shock. “To have another member actually do something like that, it’s hard to fathom,” said Republican Rep. Mike Marcotte. The incident has led to a confidential ethics probe by the House Ethics Panel to determine whether Morrissey’s actions constitute harassment.

Rep. Morrissey, who has faced disciplinary actions such as being removed from a key committee, issued an apology but did not provide an explanation for her actions. “I deeply regret my actions and any distress they caused Representative Carroll,” Morrissey said in a brief statement. However, the apology has done little to quell the outrage and confusion over her motive.

The incident has drawn sharp criticism from various quarters, with many questioning the appropriateness of such conduct within the legislative environment. “It’s just unbelievable that a lawmaker would stoop to such behavior,” remarked Rep. Angela Arsenault, a Democrat who has viewed the footage. The ethics investigation will determine if further disciplinary measures are warranted against Morrissey.

The scandal underscores a troubling lapse in decorum and professionalism within the Vermont Statehouse, highlighting the need for robust ethical standards and accountability for public officials. As the investigation continues, many are calling for a thorough review to ensure such incidents do not recur in the future.

The post GOP Lawmaker Caught Pouring Water in Democrat Rival’s Bag appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

In a surprising turn of events, Michelle Obama will not be campaigning for President Joe Biden in the 2024 election, reportedly due to the Biden family’s treatment of Kathleen Buhle, Hunter Biden’s ex-wife. Buhle, who divorced Hunter in 2017 amid his struggles with addiction, has been effectively ostracized by the Biden family following the publication of her memoir in 2022. This book detailed her tumultuous marriage and Hunter’s battles with substance abuse​​.

Sources close to the Obamas indicate that Michelle’s decision stems from her disapproval of how Buhle has been marginalized. Despite the Bidens’ public image of unity, the internal family dynamics tell a different story.

Interesting timing on this story: Michelle Obama thinks the Biden family has been unfair to Hunter’s ex-wife and hasn’t been involved in campaigning for Joe. Barack described Biden family dynamics as “weird shit” per @axios: https://t.co/SHgSwz5Poz

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) June 27, 2024

Buhle’s exclusion from significant family events, such as her daughter Naomi Biden’s wedding photoshoot for Vogue, which only featured Naomi and Jill Biden, has been particularly contentious​​.

The fallout from Buhle’s memoir, “If We Break,” and the subsequent strain on her relationship with the Biden family, highlights a broader issue of loyalty and personal history within political families. Buhle has been vocal about her experiences, which include feeling unsupported by the Bidens during her marriage and after her divorce from Hunter​​.

Buried details here:

The Obamas did not encourage Biden to run and Michelle didn’t want to campaign for him in 2020 either.

Oof. https://t.co/DlI3q8p1hN

— Sunny (@sunnyright) June 27, 2024

Hunter Biden’s ongoing legal troubles have further complicated matters. Buhle’s recent testimony in his federal gun trial brought renewed media attention to her and the Biden family’s personal struggles.

She testified about Hunter’s drug use and their challenging marriage, adding to the Biden family’s discomfort with her public revelations​.

The decision of a prominent figure like Michelle Obama to step back from campaigning for Biden could have significant political ramifications. The former First Lady has been a critical asset for the Democratic Party, known for her powerful speeches and widespread popularity. Her absence on the campaign trail may influence voter sentiment and the overall dynamics of the 2024 election​​.

This development underscores the intricate and often private issues that can influence public political strategies. It also reflects the broader theme of personal loyalty and public perception in high-stakes political environments. As the 2024 election approaches, the Biden campaign will need to navigate these personal and political complexities to maintain its momentum.

The post Michelle Obama Not Campaigning for Biden Over Hunter Biden’s Ex-Wife Kathleen Buhle appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

It seems like no one can stand the Biden family these days.

As their patriarch’s diminishing approval rating prove, there’s only political loss to be experienced when standing with them.

From the many scandals swirling around Hunter Biden to the numerous presidential disasters Joe Biden has overseen, the Biden family’s troubles are so numerous they even seem to be pushing top Democrats away.

This reportedly includes even Michelle Obama.

The report was a Wednesday exclusive from Axios.

The outlet claimed that the former first lady has privately bad-mouthed the Biden family and how they “exiled” her friend Kathleen Buhle, Hunter Biden’s ex-wife, after their 2017 divorce.

The two women reportedly became friends during the Obama administration.

According to Hunter Biden’s memoir, they would work out together and enjoy cocktails with one another at the White House.

In her 2022 book, Obama appeared to confirm the friendship was still ongoing, saying “My friend Kathleen and I keep regular morning dates to walk by the river,” according to Axios.

When leaks exposed Hunter Biden’s dangerous behavior — doing hardcore drugs and soliciting sex from prostitutes, among other misdeeds — members of the Biden family blamed Buhle.

Because of this, Michelle Obama reportedly “felt Buhle had been wronged,” and rightly so: It’s not her fault Hunter Biden chose to conduct himself like a degenerate. The wife of such a man is undoubtedly a victim.

But the Bidens apparently didn’t feel that way.

Axios went on to claim that these “family tensions” are the reason, at least in part, for the former first lady’s decision not to campaign for Joe Biden’s re-election in 2024.

Notably, as Axios pointed out, Michelle Obama has not appeared alongside her husband as he has attempted to promote Biden’s re-election in recent months.

She hasn’t even published a social media post supporting Biden since he announced his campaign.

Michelle wasn’t the only Obama put off by the Bidens, however.

After attending a fundraiser during a time when Hunter was dating Hallie Biden, the widow of his deceased brother Beau, former President Obama was reportedly more than a bit disturbed, describing the situation as “weird s***,” Axios reported.

Though sources from Biden’s family claim the Obamas and Bidens are still close, a close examination of the above facts makes it clear that is most likely far from the case.

If nothing else can be learned from this news story, one thing seems apparent: The Biden brand is toxic, even to some of the most powerful figures on the far left.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Michelle Obama Snubs Biden Over Hunter’s Treatment of Ex-Wife, Who Has Close Ties to Her: Report appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

By Wayne Allyn Root

I don’t mean to say, “I told you so.” But boy, did I tell you so. When no one else was willing to say it…on national TV.

Four years ago the owner of Newsmax TV fired me for “being disrespectful to Joe Biden.” His words.

Because throughout 2019 and 2020, I kept saying on my primetime Newsmax TV show, “Joe Biden has dementia. Joe Biden belongs in a nursing home. Joe Biden is a feeble old man. Joe Biden cannot possibly be allowed to be president with his declining mental state.”

I lost my primetime TV show over RAW TRUTH.

That was all before Joe Biden was elected President of the United States. Or should I say, “installed as the illegitimate president by a rigged and stolen election.”

Over the past four years of the so-called “Biden Presidency,” I’ve screamed from the highest mountains on my national radio and new national TV shows on Real America’s Voice TV that…

*Joe Biden has dementia, or Alzheimer’s, combined with some form of Parkinson’s Disease, and should be removed from office…

*Democrats are scamming us with a fake president and zombie puppet who takes his orders from Obama and then “puts a lid on it” and takes a nap by Noon each day…

*Biden’s mental deterioration is an embarrassment to the United States…

*Joe’s wife Jill Biden should be indicted for elder abuse…

*Obama has been the real de-facto president all along…

*Obama gives all the orders to an administration filled with ex Obama administration officials…

*Joe Biden would be thrown under the bus and replaced this summer, after it became clear he could not defeat President Trump.

This has ALWAYS been Obama’s presidency.

I even predicted in writing that the only reason for a June debate- the earliest in history- was so Democrats would have an excuse to replace Joe Biden before, or at the Democrat Convention in August.

This was Obama’s devious plan all along. Brilliant.

That’s one heck of a track record of “on the money” predictions- all in writing and recorded on national TV.

But wait, it gets better!

I’ve also been predicting for 18 months now that Joe Biden would be replaced by Michelle Obama. I even wrote her acceptance speech a month ago. I knew exactly what she’d say. See:

https://rootforamerica.com/get-ready-for-michelle-obama/

But my main contention was always that Biden would absolutely be replaced this summer. Who it is, is anyone’s guess. I did leave room for other choices too- it could be Gavin Newsom…it could be Hillary Clinton…days ago, I even threw a new name into the ring- Wes Moore- an Obama clone just elected Governor of Maryland.

But Michelle was always my frontrunner. Here is why…

First, I’ve always argued Trump is unbeatable. He is winning historic proportions of the black vote and youth vote. Only a bigger-than-life celebrity like Michelle could save the Democrat Party from a landslide loss.

Michelle is the only one capable of winning back black voters and young voters. Michelle is the only one who could generate the excitement necessary to make a horserace out of it. The Obama “brand” is the only one that can compete with the Trump brand.

Secondly, why was Chicago chosen as the site for the Democrat Convention? That choice never made any sense. Political parties always choose a site in a battleground state, which gives them a chance to win a contested state. But Democrats chose Chicago- a 100% Democrat city, in a state they have a 100% chance of winning. Why?

Because Michelle was ALWAYS their backup plan.

Chicago is Michelle’s hometown. She was born and raised in Chicago. This will be her coronation, her “coming out” party. She will be hailed as “the hometown hero” for giving up her life of wealth, celebrity and travel to become the Democrat nominee for president. Chicago will go wild. The drama and excitement are literally “made for TV.” It’s like a reality show…

It’s like “Celebrity Apprentice.”

Lastly and most importantly, the Democrat Party is all about identity politics. They need black and minority votes to have any chance to win. They need to excite black and minority voters like never before- to get them back to the Democrat reservation.

And the one thing they can’t afford to do is offend black voters by leaping over Kamala Harris for a white man. They could never do that. A large portion of the black vote would stay home.

So, Gavin Newsom is out.

Besides, California is a disaster. Gavin could not defend what’s happened to California. The taxes, debt, crime, drugs, homelessness, retail store closures, authoritarian Covid lockdowns under Newsom. Californians are fleeing in record numbers. Newsom might have the worst track record of any candidate in history.

Trump would destroy Newsom in an even bigger landslide than Biden.

All Democrats have left to replace Biden at the last minute and have even a semblance of a chance to beat Trump is Michelle. It’s all they’ve ever had. She’s been waiting in the wings for 18 months- as I’ve been warning.

This has always been Barack Obama’s plan.

It might be Michelle with Gavin Newsom as VP. It might be an all-female ticket of Michelle and Hillary. If they can’t bribe Kamala to leave with an offer of a Supreme Court nomination, it could be Michelle and Kamala (but I highly doubt it- Kamala is hated).

Or Democrats could go with Gavin, or Christine Whitman, or Maryland Governor Wes Moore in an emergency, if Michelle refuses to run. But they’d be sacrificial lambs, practicing for 2028 after Trump leaves office.

It’s even possible Democrats could try to install Barack Obama as VP, as “insurance” for Biden to get through the campaign, if they’re willing to test the U.S. Constitution.

But I will put my money on Michelle, in Chicago, in August.

And then we shall have the most exciting presidential race in history with the two biggest brand names in history…

Trump vs Obama.

HOT OFF THE PRESSES: Watch Wayne’s brand new TV Show, “The ROOT Reaction” weeknights at 10 PM ET/7 PM Pacific on Real America’s Voice TV, and Wayne’s weekend “America’s Top Ten Countdown” on Saturdays at Noon ET/9 AM PT on Real America’s Voice TV. Watch at RealAmericasVoice.com, or at Rumble, Roku, Pluto, Apple, Dish TV Ch 219, or go to RootforAmerica.com to watch.

The post WAYNE ROOT: For 4 Long Years I’ve Been Warning Joe Biden Belongs in Nursing Home, Wife Jill Should Be Indicted for Elder Abuse, Obama is the Real President, and Biden Will Be Replaced at Convention by Michelle Obama. Believe Me Now? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has overturned the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) use of 1512(c)(2), a statute pertaining to obstruction of an official proceeding, in cases related to the events of January 6th (J6).

This ruling signifies a major win for those political prisoners and is seen as a significant setback for the Biden regime.

This decision reveals that the Department of Justice unlawfully prosecuted over 350 Americans for their participation in January 6—a blatant misuse of the law aimed at punishing those who protested Biden’s election and at criminalizing political dissent.

The DoJ and U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves are prosecuting Donald Trump under 4 counts of protesting the 2020 presidential election.  Two of the four charges are for violating 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) and (k) for conspiring to do so.  Because the other two counts are fuzzy, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump could collapse in an ocean of vagueness without the only two clear counts.

Hundreds of Defendants have taken plea deals because of the severe threat of being charged with 18 U.S.C. 1512.  Attorney Roger Roots is battling cases where the DoJ offers plea deals usually of “the four misdemeanors” and then adds felonies like 1512 as retaliation against Defendants who won’t plead guilty.

Judge Carl Nichols dismissed 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) charges against three January 6 Defendants – Jake Lang, Garrett Miller, and Joseph Fischer – on the grounds that the conduct alleged was outside of the reach of the statute.  The statute was passed as a species of obstruction of justice by tampering with evidence.  It has never been used in this way before.  Prosecutors are in effect “legislating from the Grand Jury room,” inventing non-existent crimes as if they were Congress.

Trouble is:  the DoJ has never used this statute before for demonstrations, even those protests that have descended into skirmishes, violence, riots, arson, assault, death or worse.  Washington, D.C. was under siege of arson and riots in 2017 before and during Donald Trump’s inauguration. If the DoJ has never before believed that 18 U.S.C. 1512 covers demonstrations, why should the Supreme Court take a different view today?

Now, in a 6-3 vote, the court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.

“To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of rec-ords, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so. See supra, at 9. The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the D. C. Circuit may assess the sufficiency of Count Three of Fischer’s indictment in light of our interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2),” the opinion reads.

The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit, which had previously adopted a broader interpretation of the law to allow charges against Fischer to proceed. The case now returns to the D.C. Circuit, where the court will assess whether the indictment can still stand under this new, narrower interpretation.

The opinion was written by the Chief Justice. Justice Barrett dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Jackson, a Democrat who joined the majority opinion, also wrote a concurring opinion.

She stresses that despite “the shocking circumstances involved in this case,” the “Court’s task is to determine what conduct is proscribed by the criminal statute that has been invoked as the basis for the obstruction charge at issue here.”

Read the ruling here:

DEVELOPING…

The post BREAKING: SCOTUS Delivers Major Blow to Corrupt Biden DOJ — Overturns Use of 1512(c)(2) in J6 Cases, Massive Win for Political Prisoners appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Los Angeles Lakers have selected the oldest son of LeBron James, Bronny James, with the 55th pick in the NBA draft.

The Lakers’ move will make LeBron and Bronny the first father-and-son duo to play in the NBA simultaneously.

In response to his son being drafted to the same team, LeBron was reportedly very emotional.

CBS Sports reported that LeBron James’ manager, Rich Paul, told several teams not to select Bronny or that he would opt to play in Australia.

Many NBA analysts believe Bronny was selected too early in the draft.

In his lone season with USC, Bronny averaged only 4.8 points.

WATCH:

BREAKING: LA Lakers draft Bronny James, where he will join his dad, LeBronpic.twitter.com/B5e1IQaWfH

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 27, 2024

Per ESPN:

Before Thursday, there had never been a father-son duo playing in the NBA at the same time. And now, the first father-son pair is set to be teammates after the Los Angeles Lakers selected Bronny James — the eldest son of LeBron James — with the 55th pick in the second round of the draft.

The James family received the news while gathered together at an intimate dinner party in New York, sources told ESPN. LeBron’s mother, Gloria, and wife Savannah’s parents attended, along with some of Bronny’s closest friends and confidants.

After the Lakers delivered their decision, LeBron led the group in a champagne toast to commemorate the occasion, a source told ESPN, and was “very emotional” considering the weight of the moment.

Bronny, 19, averaged 4.8 points, 2.8 rebounds and 2.1 assists in 19.4 minutes per game in his lone season at USC. He joined the Trojans in game action midseason after being sidelined for nearly five months while recovering from a cardiac arrest episode that required surgery to treat a congenital heart defect.

Bronny: Los Angeles Laker. pic.twitter.com/TvhkzEs9sO

— Los Angeles Lakers (@Lakers) June 27, 2024

LeBron James and Bronny James are now teammates.

( @ThrowbackHoops) pic.twitter.com/SsA6GkJHRA

— Hoop Central (@TheHoopCentral) June 27, 2024

The post Family Affair: Lakers Draft LeBron James’ Son Bronny in 2nd Round of Draft appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.