Quick Hits

Biden directly linked Ukraine and Israel funding last night, with the not-so-hidden implied threat that if he doesn't get his $100 billion for Ukraine, Israel won't be restocked with the Iron Dome missiles it needs to defend itself.

But, as Kyle Shideler points out, he never asked for authorization to give Hamas $100 million.

That money, he'll give Hamas with or without authorization.

Is this America? No, it is not America. Not anymore.

Michael P Senger @michaelpsenger

Today, auditors told Congress as much as *$2.5 trillion* of the $5 trillion the US spent on COVID relief went to China and its allies through fraud.

That's enough to fund the entire Chinese military for 8 years. Keep that in mind when you hear how great our COVID response was.

Oh. My. God.

Greta Tardberg tweeted her support of the terrorist group Hamas, and then deleted it. How stunning and #Brave.

Former Trump lawyer Sydney Powell has made a deal with prosecutors that requires her to testify as needed at other trials.

Technofog claims that the prosecutors dropped the felony charges just because they knew they overcharged and were, I don't know, attempting to escape their own liability? Not sure what he's saying.

He overlooks the more common and more obvious reason for dropping charges and letting someone plea to a misdemeanor: that they've given the prosecutor an offer to testify against other people.

I'm not saying he's wrong. There is a long history of Trump associates being overcharged. I'm just a little baffled how this much more common scenario is completely unmentioned.

Ed Morrissey discusses it:

Note that the agreement requires her to "testify truthfully" against all her co-defendants, as well as to refrain from media appearances until the end of the trials. Needless to say, that's a stunning reversal for Powell, who seemed at one time to be the truest of True Believers in Stop the Steal. Willis clearly calculated the broad RICO indictment to flip some of the defendants against Trump, but Powell is likely the closest possible figure to the former president in this indictment, save Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows. And we know that Powell and Giuliani worked closely together on election issues.

It's tough to overestimate the win Willis got in flipping Powell. As one of the organizers of the Stop the Steal effort, Powell can testify to the intent and purpose of the "racket," as well as the specific involvement of each member in specific acts to further the alleged fraud. That danger probably impacts Giuliani most, but if Powell had the kind of access to Trump that she claimed, he's now got a yuuuge problem on his hands....

The more central figures like Meadows and Giuliani may realize that they now risk actual prison time if they refuse to cooperate. That risk increases as more people flip, because prosecutors offer the best deals to the first defendants to accept deals. If either Meadows or Giuliani decide to cut bait and plea out, their only value to Willis will be in fingering Trump for fraud and interference -- and their testimony could prove devastating to Trump not just legally but politically as well.

I'm not sure what anyone can testify to. I mean, it is not illegal to dispute an election. Or it wasn't, until 20 minutes ago.

On the other hand, there is the bit about all alleged "hack" of voting information.

A federal judge has struck down another California weapons ban as unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez delivered another scathing rebuke to the state of California on Thursday, just weeks after declaring the state's ban on "large capacity" magazines unconstitutional. This time around it was the state's ban on "assault weapons" that was before the judge, in a case known as Miller v. Bonta. Benitez was unsparing in his criticism of the law, which he says bars ordinary Californians from possessing commonly-owned arms that are protected by the language of the Second Amendment.

Modern semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 platform rifle are widely owned by law-abiding citizens across the nation. Other than their looks (the State calls them "features" or "accessories") these prohibited rifles are virtually the same as other lawfully possessed rifles. They have the same minimum overall length, they use the same triggers, they have the same barrels, and they can fire the same ammunition, from the same magazines, at the same rate of fire, and at the same velocities, as other rifles. What is it, then, that animates the State's criminalization of possessing certain rifles as "assault weapons"? It is that similar rifles have been used in some mass shootings and that by virtue of this law, the legislature hoped to keep these modern weapons out of the hands of mass shooters. The California legislature, at a time in the past when the lower courts did not recognize an individual's right to keep firearms and in a state that has no constitutional analogue to the Second Amendment, balanced that interest above and against its law-abiding citizens who wanted these firearms for self-defense.

That was then. Today, the Supreme Court has very clearly ended modern interest balancing when it comes to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, the Court said, "is the very product of an interest balancing by the people and it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for self-defense." It is "this balance--struck by the traditions of the American people--that demands our unqualified deference."

The American tradition is rich and deep in protecting a citizen's enduring right to keep and bear common arms like rifles, shotguns, and pistols. However, among the American tradition of firearm ownership, there is nothing like California's prohibition on rifles, shotguns, and handguns based on their looks or attributes. Here, the "assault weapon" prohibition has no historical pedigree and it is extreme. Even today, neither Congress nor most states impose such prohibitions on modern semiautomatic arms. In contrast, laws that punish criminal acts committed with any gun, like the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, remain perfectly constitutional. Those criminal laws are not at issue here.

A lot more at the link, including a lot more legal analysis.

In New York City, a homeless drug addict punched a commuter and broke his jaw, and then pushed a woman in front of an approaching subway train.

Part of her head was cut off by the train.

From the NY Post:

The victim hit her head on the departing downtown E train and then tumbled onto the roadbed at the Fifth Avenue/53rd Street station just after noon, according to the NYPD and police sources.

The suspect was mumbling to himself as he pushed her into the train, the sources said...

The young woman -- who was either coming or going from work at the time of the attack -- was taken to New York Presbyterian Hospital, where she was listed in critical condition, cops said.

She underwent surgery -- where a significant portion of her skull was removed, according to Kemper and the sources.

John Sexton's article recaps all the other people thrown in front of subways by homeless mentally-ill drug addicts. And how New York City gentry liberals keep saying there is no problem at all, because they get chauffeured around.

Why doesn't AOC start taking the subway when she's in town? She should brave the murders and maimings she's inflicted on others through her advocacy of setting all the criminals free.

Not a whiff of insurrection here!

Cori Bush says it's not "insurrection" as long as it's fighting "the status quo."

Congresswoman Cori Bush @RepCori

What we're not going to do is call yesterday's courageous and nonviolent anti-war, pro-peace demonstrations an "insurrection".
This was "good trouble" civil disobedience.

(And let's be clear: Jan. 6 was not civil disobedience; it was an insurrection)

As a politivist in Congress, I know the power of civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience has been used throughout history to fight back against oppression, violence & injustice. It's been used to protest the Vietnam War, South African apartheid, Jim Crow, police brutality & more.

Civil disobedience is often undermined and criminalized in attempts to preserve the status quo.

For example, Nelson Mandela was on the U.S. terrorist watch list until 2008. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was actively targeted by the FBI.

Thanks to redridinghood.

It's a Body Diversity Goldfinger.

I don't know where hideously unattractive women get the idea that they are "brave" for forcing us to look at their saggy sacks of failure.

We have a crisis of self-esteem. There's too fucking much of it.

You guys deserve that last photo. You know what you did.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 06:50 PM

| Access Comments