Now Is Not The Time For Senate Republicans To Play Nice On Biden’s Judicial Nominees

In the months before Trump assumes office, Democrats control the Senate, and President Biden has sent up a slew of hardcore leftist nominees.

Montana Supreme Court Goes After AG Austin Knudsen’s Law License As He Seeks Reelection

Montana’s supreme court is improperly using the attorney discipline system, which it controls, as a weapon in a political dispute.

Exclusive: Chip Roy presses government for 'egregious' attempts to override Congress, influence judicial policy



Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas pushed back on the "egregious abuse" of federal actors attempting to circumvent congressional authority by influencing judicial policy, according to a Monday letter obtained exclusively by Blaze News.

In the letter addressed to Robin Rosenberg, who chairs the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, Roy points out that Congress is actively considering legislation that would improve the effectiveness of the judiciary. At the same time, the committee is aiming to get rid of single-judge divisions for political convenience, according to the letter.

"The Administrative Office of the Courts is asking Congress to expand judgeships while simultaneously taking steps to usurp congressional authority by disempowering single-judge divisions," Roy said in the letter. "As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to block any Administrative Office of the Courts priority until it stops the misguided attack."

'If your committee does not appreciate the legal and separation-of-powers issues at play, I hope it will at least recognize the political issues,' Roy said.

"It appears that your committee is upset that certain litigants that do not check the correct ideological box are filing lawsuits in single-judge divisions and finding success," Roy said in the letter. "This is a strange time for concern, given that the ideological left has long brought suits in courthouses where home state senators ensure a left-of-center judiciary."

Roy also noted in the letter that former President Donald Trump had more injunctions against him than President Joe Biden, stifling claims of judicial bias against left-wingers.

"Why be concerned now instead of then?" Roy asked.

Roy says that Rosenberg cannot expect Congress to work alongside the committee if the committee is simultaneously trying to circumvent Congress.

"If your committee does not appreciate the legal and separation-of-powers issues at play, I hope it will at least recognize the political issues," Roy said in the letter. "The courts cannot reasonably expect Congress to approve a significant number of additional judges while undermining congressional authority."

"If you don't hold up your end of the bargain, don't ask us to hold up ours," Roy said in the letter. "I cannot in good conscience support legislation — as a Texan, or as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution — that expands the number of federal judges unless the Rules Committee, under your leadership, remedies this egregious abuse of authority."

The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrat-Friendly Licensing Boards Target Republican Attorneys General In Election Year

'Every minute I’m spending defending the AG from this is one minute I’m not spending suing the Biden administration or defending laws passed by the legislature.'

Democrats Are Launching A Judicial Power Grab In Case Of A Trump Victory

Democrats are trying everything they can to hold onto judicial power in case Trump wins in November.

House drops its Biden impeachment report — and it's damning



The House Oversight, Ways and Means, and Judiciary Committees brought their nearly yearlong impeachment probe of President Joe Biden to an end Monday, concluding that the Democrat who unwittingly made Kamala Harris' second presidential bid possible has engaged in "egregious" and impeachable offenses.

According to the investigators' nearly 300-page report, "overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Biden participated in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family."

"Among other aspects of this conspiracy, the Biden family and their business associates received tens of millions of dollars from foreign interests by leading those interests to believe that such payments would provide them access to and influence with President Biden," said the report.

Bank records reportedly show that when accounting also for the Biden family's business associates and their companies, the international "influence peddling schemes totaled over $27 million from foreign sources" just from 2014 to 2023.

Contrary to the repeated suggestion by Biden and boosters that he had no hand in his son's shady dealings with foreign nationals from Ukraine, China, Russia, Kazakhstan, and elsewhere, the report maintains that Biden "knowingly participated in this conspiracy" — that it is "inconceivable that President Biden did not understand that he was taking part in an effort to enrich his family by abusing his office of public trust."

In August 2019, Biden said, "I have never discussed with my son, or my brother, or anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses."

The following month, Biden said, "I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings."

Days after indicating that he stood by his previous protestations, Biden noted on Oct. 15, "I never discussed a single thing with my son about anything having do with Ukraine. No one has indicated I have. We've always kept everything separate."

Biden made similar denials on at least a dozen more occasions, well into his presidency.

Despite his protests, the report indicates that no such distance existed and that some of the proceeds from the influence-peddling scheme indeed went to Joe Biden. Among the funds from the scheme that ended up in Joe Biden's bank account, hundreds of thousands of dollars were allegedly "directly traceable to China."

'Joe Biden has exhibited conduct and taken actions that the Founders sought to guard against in drafting the impeachment provisions in the Constitution.'

The report indicated that Biden's active participation was sometimes expressed in American policy changes, as evidenced by the leveraging of a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine to secure a result favorable to a company affiliated with his son, convicted felon Hunter Biden.

Not only does the report accuse Biden and his ilk of engaging in this conspiracy, it claims they also did their best to cover it up:

Foreign money was transmitted to the Biden family through complicated financial transactions. The Biden family laundered funds through intermediate entities and broke up large transactions into numerous smaller transactions. Substantial efforts were also made to hide President Biden’s involvement in his family’s business activities.

House Democrats may be prickled to learn that precedents they set in 2019 in their impeachment of President Donald Trump have been turned on Biden.

The House Democrats of yesteryear argued that "'abuse of office,' defined as the exercise of 'official power to obtain an improper personal benefit, while ignoring or injuring the national interest,' is an impeachable offense."

House Republicans were evidently willing to accept this legal interpretation as instructive in their investigation of Biden.

The House Democrats of yesteryear also apparently argued that "'the House may properly conclude that a President's obstruction of Congress is relevant to assessing the evidentiary record in an impeachment inquiry' and 'where the President illegally seeks to obstruct such an inquiry, the House is free to infer that evidence blocked from its view is harmful to the President's position.'"

House Republicans, met with obstruction and refusals to cooperate from the White House, the Biden-Harris administration, and the DOJ, were again willing to embrace the supposed wisdom of their peers and similarly infer guilt.

Extra to hammering Biden over his alleged sale of American political destiny for self-enrichment, the report separately accuses Biden of using "his official position to conceal his mishandling of classified information as a private citizen."

Robert Hur, who led the investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents, apparently figured the president too decrepit to face legal culpability, though he ultimately chose ultimately not to exonerate him outright.

The report underscored that "Joe Biden has exhibited conduct and taken actions that the Founders sought to guard against in drafting the impeachment provisions in the Constitution: abuse of power, foreign entanglements, corruption, and obstruction of investigations into these matters."

It recommended that under the Constitution, the remedy is clear: The House must impeach Biden and the Senate should remove him from office.

Although the report could prove a black eye for the Democratic president whose political career is now all but over, it may similarly dog the Department of Justice, since it reiterates and buttresses past claims about the DOJ's apparent efforts to give Hunter Biden "special treatment" and spare him from the kind of accountability those outside the top echelons of the Democratic Party might otherwise face.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, stated on X, "The evidence produced by our impeachment inquiry is the strongest case for impeachment of a sitting president the House of Representatives has ever investigated. We have exposed the truth."

"The facts speak for themselves, and Democrats can no longer stretch the truth to cover for President Biden," wrote House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). "As Democrats celebrate Joe Biden and crown Kamala Harris as his heir apparent this week, Americans should remember the reality of the Biden-Harris Administration: crime, chaos, and corruption."

Politico noted that it would be historically anomalous now for an impeachment vote not to follow the inquiry, not to mention politically risky for House Republicans facing re-election.

While an impeachment vote might succeed in the House, where Republicans enjoy a sliver majority, it is all but guaranteed to fail in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Reversal of FATE: Steve Baker’s update on January 6 prisoners is ‘a good sign’



January 6 started as a chance for Trump supporters to innocently protest and quickly turned into a day that would change their lives forever.

Now, however, things might be taking a turn for the better.

“One J-sixer is seeing a reversal of fate,” Jill Savage of “Blaze New Tonight” explains.

“John Strand is actually one of the more, let’s call it, infamous stories, certainly one of the more high-profile cases of all the January 6 defendants,” Steve Baker tells Savage.

Strand was friend and bodyguard of Simone Gold — a doctor and attorney who was the deplatformed founder of the Frontline American Doctors. Gold had been accused of “disinformation” for recommending alternative therapies that were not part of what Baker calls the “approved narrative” regarding COVID-19.

Gold was scheduled to speak on January 6 at one of the six legally permitted events scheduled on the Capitol property that day.

“By the time they got to the Capitol, everything had gone to hell in a handbasket, and so there was nothing but chaos by the time they arrived. The breaches had already taken place. John Strand and Simone Gold did not participate in violence, they did not participate in breaching the Capitol building whatsoever,” Baker explains.

However, their fatal flaw was going inside the Capitol peacefully.

“She actually decided to deliver her prepared remarks there in the Rotunda. She climbed up on the Eisenhower statue, with John standing guard beside her, she delivered her remarks there in the great Rotunda of the Capitol, and then they peacefully left, just as so many other hundreds and thousands of people did,” Baker says.

Both Strand and Gold were “handed that infamous 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding felony.”

The felony carried up to 20 years of imprisonment.

Gold ended up taking a plea deal and pled down to a single misdemeanor. Judge Christopher Cooper sentenced her to 60 days in prison.

“John Strand decided he was not going to take this lying down, that he was going to be a warrior, and he, despite the odds being horribly stacked against him, he was going to go to trial and he did that,” Baker explains.

He was convicted on all counts, and he was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

“Now what’s happening is that because of the Supreme Court’s overturning the 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding charge against 355 defendants, him being one of those,” Baker says, “they’re shortening their sentences or letting them go.”

If they haven’t gone to trial yet, they’re not charging them with it.

“It’s especially a good sign because the Department of Justice has already announced that they want to figure out how to continue with that charge,” Baker explains. “But the point being, is it appears that the judges are pushing back against the DOJ.”

“We’ll take this as a good sign,” he adds.


Liberal journalists sound alarm: Government-driven 'disinformation' censorship is a threat to democracy



Establishmentarians in the West have long harped on the need to protect democracy. Notwithstanding their rhetorical support for a politically empowered citizenry, it appears there are forces, particularly in the intelligence community, that are unwilling to trust Americans to determine — on their own and in concert with one another — how best to wield their civic power.

On Thursday, investigative journalist Matt Taibbi distilled the problem down for Congress thusly: "Take away the highfalutin talk about countering hate and reducing harm, and anti-disinformation is just a bluntly elitist gatekeeping exercise. If you prefer to think in progressive terms, it's class war."

Taibbi further indicated that recent censorship efforts by the Biden administration and elements of the intelligence community have tended to "drift in one direction," amounting in some cases to what investigative journalist Michael Shellenberg also stressed was election interference.

Government weaponization

Since the first Twitter Files report last November, the Biden administration has been outed for assuming "a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth'" and for leaning on social media companies to both censor and cure narratives. There have, however, been recent indications that the depths of the government's weaponization have not yet been fully plumbed.

Hours after highlighting efforts by the Biden administration to pressure Google to "crack down" on undesirable communications during the pandemic, the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government convened a hearing to better understand the lengths to which the government has gone to mold public opinion and suppress free speech.

After Virgin Islands Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D) rushed out a comparison of former President Donald Trump to Nazis, the Weaponization Subcommittee heard testimony from Taibbi and Shellenberger, both of whom previously detailed the extent of the collusion between the American government and Twitter, and heard also from Rupa Subramanya, a Canada-based journalist.

Olivia Troye, a former Homeland Security adviser and ardent critic of Trump, also spoke, dismissing and on at least one occasion defending censorship efforts, and serving ultimately as a sounding board for Democratic lawmakers' grievances against the Republican front-runner in the 2024 presidential election.

Taibbi

In his opening remarks, Taibbi noted that "there has been a dramatic shift in attitudes about speech in this country, and many politicians now clearly believe the bulk of Americans can't be trusted to digest information on their own."

"This mindset imagines that if we see one clip from [Russian news], we'll stop being patriots; that once exposed to hate speech, we'll become bigots ourselves automatically; that if we read even one Donald Trump tweet, we will become insurrectionists," said Taibbi.

"Having come to this conclusion, the government agencies like the DHS and the FBI and the quasi-private agencies who do anti-disinformation work have taken upon themselves the paternalistic responsibility to sort out for us what is and is not safe," continued the journalist.

"While they see great danger in allowing others to read controversial material, it's taken for granted that they themselves will be immune to the dangers of speech."

Taibbi, who indicated he has voted Democrat all his life, underscored the need to defund projects like the government-linked Election Integrity Project "before it's too late."

Subramanya

Subramanya held up Canada as a case study in how bad censorship, government overreach, and leftist identity politics can go in the West, highlighting the northern nation's race-based punitive measures; online censorship efforts; de-banking of peaceful political dissenters; and selective application of speech controls, especially as it pertains to protesters.

Subramanya indicated that what is taking place in Canada is "a gradual suffocation of free expression," stressing that while "draped in a cloak of niceness, inclusivity, and justice ... it is regressive, authoritarian, and illiberal."

"I came here today not simply to warn you about what lies ahead, but to plead with you to do something about it," said the Canada-based journalist. "Now is not the time to be polite. Now is the time to defend, loudly, liberties and rights that have given us the greatest freedoms in human history."

Subramanya later told Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) that it doesn't take long to lose free speech, suggesting it more or less happened in Canada in under ten years.

Shellenberger

In his opening remarks and answers, Shellenberger made repeated reference to the "CTI League files."

Days ahead of the hearing, Shellenberger detailed damning findings from documents brought forward by a whistleblower concerning a so-called "anti-disinformation" group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League "that officially began as the volunteer project of data scientists and defense and intelligence veterans but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security."

The whistleblower was allegedly recruited to participate in CTIL "through monthly cybersecurity meetings hosted by DHS."

The documents appear to show that American, Israeli, and British intelligence contractors led by a former U.K. defense researcher, Sara-Jayne Terp, developed a sweeping censorship framework in 2019.

Wired touted Terp in 2020 as a data scientist who "uses the tools of cybersecurity to track false claims like they're malware. Her goal: Stop dangerous lies from hacking our beliefs."

Of course, "lies" might just amount to unfavorable truths or beliefs.

"Beliefs can be hacked," Terp told the magazine.

"The CTIL framework and the public-private model are the seeds of what both the U.S. and U.K. would put into place in 2020 and 2021, including masking censorship within cybersecurity institutions and counter-disinformation agendas; a heavy focus on stopping disfavored narratives, not just wrong facts; and pressuring social media platforms to take down information or take other actions to prevent content from going viral," Shellenberger noted further in his breakdown of the whistleblower's documents.

According to the documents, this censorship cabal attempted to shape public opinion by discussing ways of promoting "counter-messaging"; co-opting hashtags to advance preferred narratives; actively suppressing undesired ideas and trends; astroturfing online; and infiltrating private groups.

While not strictly governmental, Shellenberger noted that government employees were nevertheless "engaged members" of the cabal. Additionally, the whistleblower indicated that CTIL sought ultimately to become part of the federal government.

It did not become its own agency, but it certainly collaborated with extant U.S. agencies.

Shellenberger indicated during the hearing Thursday that government operatives who grew accustomed to "waging disinformation campaigns and psyops in foreign countries" have turned those tools against the American people.

When confronted about directing these campaigns homeward, the journalist suggested the agencies responsible have refused accountability. For instance, Shellenberger noted that Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and FBI Director Christopher Wray "misled Congress" when claiming their agencies weren't involved in demanding censorship by social media platforms.

Shellenberger recommended making Section 230 liability protections contingent on social media platforms allowing adult users "to moderate our own legal content through filters that we choose and whose algorithms are transparent to all of us" as well as prohibiting government officials from asking platforms to remove content.

Should the Supreme Court ultimately determine in Missouri v. Biden that some government calls for censorship are permissible, the journalist urged Congress to require that such censorship requests are immediately reported publicly so that "such censorship demands occur in plain sight."

Hearing on the Weaponization of the Federal Government youtu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!