Daily Archives: March 20, 2024

In a surprising move, Judge Scott McAfee ruled Wednesday that Donald Trump and eight Republican co-defendants may appeal McAfees decision to allow Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to oversee her get-Trump prosecution despite potential conflicts of interest.

The challenged order is not one of final judgment, and the State has informed the Court that it has complied with the orders demands, McAfee wrote. Thus, unless directed otherwise by an appellate court, supersedeas shall only apply to the order being appealed.

On Friday, McAfee had ruled that Willis could continue prosecuting the former president and other Republican co-defendants, as long as special prosecutor Nathan Wade withdrew from the case. The decision came despite McAfee finding Willis and Wades romantic relationship in which Willis paid Wade taxpayer dollars as part of the prosecution gives an appearance of impropriety.

Wade resigned from the case Friday afternoon.

In his certificate of immediate review, McAfee ruled Wednesday that defendants motions to dismiss and disqualify Willis is of such importance to the case that immediate review should be had[.] He also noted he will continue to oversee many other unrelated pending pretrial motions relevant to the case, regardless of whether the petition is granted Fulton County Superior Court within 45 days of filing, and even if any subsequent appeal is expedited by the appellate court.

Apretrial motionseeking to disqualify Willis from the case was filed on Jan. 8 by co-defendant Michael Roman, one of 19 RepublicansWilliss office indictedin August for challenging Georgias 2020 election results. The motion sought to have the charges against Roman dismissed on several grounds, one of whichallegedthat Willis was involved in a romantic relationship with Wade, whom Willis appointed to assist with the prosecution.

Assummarizedby The Daily Caller, the filing claimed Willis benefited from appointing Wade when he took her on vacations using funds earned from his lucrative contract andsoughtto have Willis disqualified from overseeing his case.

[RELATED: Its Time For Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp And His AG To Indict Fani Willis For Perjury]

During court testimony last month, Willis and Wadeclaimed their romantic relationship did not begin until spring 2022 months after Wade was appointed special prosecutor on Nov. 1, 2021 and lasted until summer 2023. Cellphone data included in a February court filing, however, appears to contradict those claims about when the relationship started. As The Federalist previously reported, the cellphone information shows Wade twice arriving at Willis condo late in the evening and departing early the next morning in the months before [the former lovers] said their relationship became romantic.'

The data appears to corroborate testimony from Robin Bryant-Yeartie. A former friend of Willis who also worked in the Fulton County attorneys office, Yeartieclaimedthere was no doubt Willis and Wades romantic relationship began earlier than the two maintained, and that shewitnessedthem hugging and kissing as early as 2019.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Follow this link:

Court: Trump Can Appeal Attempt To Disqualify Fani Willis - The Federalist

The media coverage of this has been so one-sided, its been so biased. Theres been this presumption from the beginning that every allegation made against the judge was true. So said Joe Scarborough on a fall morning in 2018, referring to the flood of bizarre sexual abuse claims made against Brett Kavanaugh.

At the time, Scarborough relayed an observation from social events he attended over the weekend. Quite a few people that we talked to, who I think a lot of them were registered Democrats, raised questions about Dr. [Christine Blasey] Fords story, he said. Scarborough opposed Kavanaughs nomination to the Supreme Court but at least conceded the obvious: The media favored Blasey Ford, despite some reasonable concerns about her credibility.

Coverage of Blasey Fords allegations was so clearly slanted that even Jeff Greenfield criticized CNN on Reliable Sources.

There is an overwhelming perception as a viewer that CNN in effect or most of its people have taken a stand about this president and about this nomination, he told Brian Stelter.

Later on the same edition of Stelters show, Trump opponent David Gergen expressed concerns about the coverage too. We have to be very, very careful in how we report and not to go overboard, not to get hysterical and to show both sides, he warned. (The Onion mocked the medias smear campaign with the headline: Kavanaugh Nomination Falters After Washington Post Publishes Shocking Editorial Claiming He Forgot Daughters Piano Recital.)

Fast forward six years, and the press is once again treating Christine Blasey Ford with little journalistic skepticism, allowing her to insist Kavanaugh is guilty of teenage sexual assault while promoting her splashy new memoir. Id compare Blasey Fords experience to a walk in the park, but on CBS Sunday Morning, thats quite literally what happened.

She knows just what it takes to summon up courage and hurl yourself off a cliff, Tracy Smith gushed this week, describing Blasey Fords experience as deeply traumatizing over footage of the pair walking along the sunny coast of Santa Cruz.

To the extent Smith pushed Blasey Ford on her allegations, it was by saying that Kavanaughs supporters wonder why no one can recall that night in the way you recall it. In a follow-up, Smith asked if that lends weight to his side of the story and bolsters his side of the story. Blasey Ford said no. The exchange took up about one minute of an eight-minute package.

An Atlantic writer generously remembered, Fords own story, in many ways, was an exception to #MeToos rule. She was listened to. She was, to a lesser extent, heard, laughably claiming, She came forward as a scientist.

Over at The View, hosts called the book fantastic and said, Thank you for what you did, speaking truth to power.

I know that it will help people, Sunny Hostin offered Blasey Ford, assuring, Were not going to rehash the details of the alleged attack.

That assurance proved correct. Even today some people remain skeptical of your story, marveled Sara Haines.

Ever the scientist, Blasey Ford said she just wanted to share the data back in 2018.

Medias partisan treatment of sexual abuse accusers is not new or surprising, as Clarence Thomas and Juanita Broaddrick can explain. Since Blasey Fords dubious allegation against Kavanaugh first surfaced, though, serious reporting has cast her claims in even worse light.

The Federalists Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway, along with Carrie Severino, published a bestselling book that broke down errors and biases in the media coverage of Blasey Ford. As Hemingway reminded readers back in 2020:

While Blasey Fords claim was the least insane one put forth by activists and other Kavanaugh opponents, there were other problems with it beyond her failure to produce evidence she had ever met him. Her four named witnesses to the event all denied knowledge of it, some vociferously so.

Even her lifelong friend Leland Keyser, who worked very hard to come up with anything,came to doubt her friends story entirely. And when she refused to say otherwise, mutual acquaintances tried to get her to change her story. Some U.S. senators thought the witness tampering so egregious that it should be prosecuted.

With no evidence beyond her own hazy memory, Blasey Ford accused a father of sexual assault in the highest-profile venue imaginable. Amid Kavanaughs denials, she then accused him of lying about sexual assault. Democrats used Blasey Ford in the service of a vicious political smear campaign. The accomplice media took up their cause and joined in, dispensing with traditional standards of journalistic rigor to unfairly malign Kavanaughs character. They then ignored an assassination attempt on Kavanaugh, to the point where even Bill Maher took notice.

The medias failure was so egregious that some of the justices opponents reluctantly acknowledged that at the time. Ronna McDaniel even told The Federalist a year after Kavanaughs confirmation that Kavanaugh brought people back to the Republican Party.

I know it did. Its the first time in my time as chair where I had people call and say Im going to join you today. And I havent been taking your calls for two years and Im writing you a check right now,' she remembered, adding, They felt like it was such an overreach, that it was character assassination, that this was a good, honest, decent guy who was being just railroaded.

Claire McCaskill partially blamed the loss of her Senate seat on the very real perception that this was an 11th-hour attempt to gut a guy.

Journalists have had many opportunities to course-correct since missing Donald Trumps rise but have basically continued sprinting in the opposite direction. Just last year, trust in media dipped back to a record low. Youll hardly get a better illustration of why than Blasey Fords book tour.

Emily Jashinsky is culture editor at The Federalist and host of Federalist Radio Hour. She previously covered politics as a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner. Prior to joining the Examiner, Emily was the spokeswoman for Young Americas Foundation. Shes interviewed leading politicians and entertainers and appeared regularly as a guest on major television news programs, including Fox News Sunday, Media Buzz, and The McLaughlin Group. Her work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Real Clear Politics, and more. Emily also serves as director of the National Journalism Center, co-host of the weekly news show Counter Points: Friday and a visiting fellow at Independent Women's Forum. Originally from Wisconsin, she is a graduate of George Washington University.

Originally posted here:

Media Give Blasey Ford Another Chance To Smear Kavanaugh - The Federalist

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan sent a letter Wednesday to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Administration (CISA) which has been called the nerve center of government censorship notifying the agency that documents related to CISAs partnership with Pennsylvania to target so-called misinformation are included in the Judiciary Committees ongoing subpoena, according to a copy of the letter obtained exclusively by The Federalist.

Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro recently announced the states Election Task Force would partner with CISAs parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to mitigate threats to the election process, protect voters from intimidation, and provide voters with accurate, trusted election information.

The Pennsylvania State Department revealed to The Federalist that the state would also be partnering with CISA to open lines of communication and share intelligence among the included government agencies.

The State Department did not clarify what intelligence refers to or what will be done with said information.

Jordan demanded the DHS provide more detailed information on the partnership by April 3.

The Committee on the Judiciary is conducting oversight of how and to what extent the Executive Branch has coerced or colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor lawful speech, the letter reads. In light of recent public reporting that the [CISA] has partnered with at least one state government in a way that may target Americans speech online in the lead-up to the upcoming 2024 election, we write to notify you that documents about such partnerships are responsive to the Committees April 28, 2023 subpoena.

Jim Jordan sends letter to by The Federalist

The reporting about a partnership between CISA and the Pennsylvania Election Threats Task Force reinforces concerns that CISA is again partnering with third parties in a way that will censor or chill Americans speech, Jordan wrote.

The governments involvement in this type of speech is particularly alarming because, as the Supreme Court has recognized, the importance of First Amendment protections is at its zenith for core political speech,' the letter continued.

[READ NEXT: Government Censorship Op Targeted The Federalists Mollie Hemingway, Sean Davis During 2020 Election]

Shapiro said the task force would combat misinformation but CISA, the DHS subagency which congressional Republicans have called the nerve center of federal censorship, has a history of targeting Americans and their free speech by smearing it as misinformation or malformation. CISA defines malinformation as anything based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.

In other words, CISA has censored Americans for stating true information.

For example, America First Legal obtained documents showing CISA created a six-point list in October 2020 warning of the risks of unsupervised mail-in voting. Publicly, however, the weaponized agency flagged social media posts highlighting those concerns as disinformation for Big Tech companies to censor.

CISA partnered with consulting firm Deloitte and asked for notifications of social media trends about narratives relating to Vote-By-Mail and to flag specific social media posts for CISAs awareness and attention.

One of the posts Deloitte flagged was an October 2020 tweet from then-President Donald Trump in which he claimed there were Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

Continue reading here:

Exclusive: Jordan Demands Docs From CISA About PA Election 'Task Force' - The Federalist

By Law Communications March 19, 2024

Tell us a little bit about the Organization: mission, goals, etc.

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (FedSoc) is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. As an organization on campus, we strive to promote open debate and conversation around legal issues that impact our nation by hosting events featuring judges, lawyers, and scholars.

Do you have any events scheduled for this spring semester?

This spring we have hosted a Welcome Back BBQ, an event on Red Flag Laws featuring the Heritage Foundations Amy Swearer, and a debate on Patent Trolls featuring Judge Ryan Holte from the Court of Federal Claims and W&L Law Professor Christopher Seaman. Coming up we will have an event titled Inside the DOJ featuring Judge Chad Readler from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, March 26th.

Can alumni get involved?

Absolutely! In addition to hosting a Fall Alumni Career panel, we regularly connect students to alumni and love when more alumni reach out and wish to get involved. If interested, alumni should get in contact with the Society by reaching out to WLU.FederalistSociety@gmail.com or filling out the FedSoc alumni survey: https://forms.gle/PsPmRUesJWrBfFxy5

Are there mentorship opportunities?

Yes! FedSoc has a mentorship program that connects students with upper classmen with similar interests.

How many law students are currently involved?

We have around 50 active members on campus and many more on our list serve.

How has the law school community supported students in this organization?

We have a lot of support from both W&L and W&L Law alumni. A number of our speaking events include contributions from various alumni across the country. One of our most impactful events is our Alumni Career Panel co-hosted by the Office of Career Strategy. For this event, FedSoc alumni working in different sectors within the legal field provide law students with insights into what its like working in the current roles as well as general legal advice. Its a great learning and networking opportunity for FedSoc members.

Is there anything else to share about the organization?

From Chelsea Kowalchuk 24L (Treasurer): Being a member of FedSoc and attending our various speaking events has exposed me to a lot of different legal topics that I would not have engaged in independently or through my legal studies. It has provided me with a greater appreciation for the complexities within todays legal environment and helped me reflect and develop my own opinion on various legal issues.

From Haley Carter 24L (President): FedSoc has been one of the highlights of my law school career, mainly because it extends beyond law school. The lawyers division has more than 100,000 active attorneys throughout the country and regularly host socials and speaker events that students can attend. It has opened the door to mentorship, friendships, and clerkship opportunities. Ive gone to the National Student Symposium every year since 1L, and it is incredible the number of people Ive become friends with at other schools. Plus, our chapter brings in incredible speakers and gives students the opportunity to meet and make connections with attorneys at the peak of their career.

See original here:

The Columns Spotlight: The Federalist Society Washington and Lee University - The Columns

This text is written and published as part of the Democracy Under Pressure Campaign of JEF Europe.

As 2024 marks the 19th edition of the Young European Federalists Democracy Under Pressure Campaign, The New Federalist is joining in the effort to raise awareness towards the systematic weaking of democratic values in Europe.

The democratic legitimacy of the EU institutions under threat

The last year has been a particularly eventful one with respect to threats to the democratic legitimacy and values which are upheld in the founding treaties of the European Union. 2022 ended with perquisitions in the offices and homes of several individuals, including MEPs, Parliament officials, and ex MEPs, under what then became Qatargate the scandal which revolves around the case that these individuals have allegedly accepted cash in exchange for promoting the interests of Qatar, Morocco and Mauritania (as well as other instances of misuse of public money). If this was not enough, the past few weeks have been also particularly hectic in Brussels, as several allegations were made with regard to the possibility that some MEPs may actually be Russian spies. What could all this mean for the future of democracy in the EU?

Qatargate

This story is extremely intricate, and unravelling to its full extent is not only difficult, but impossible, in fact also the Belgian public prosecutor is struggling to do so. What is evident, is that until now none of the suspects has been officially charged, and that some of them, including Eva Kaili, who was one of the EPs vice presidents at the time the scandal broke, is still allowed to work as Parliamentarian (despite her immunity being strapped in February which paves the way for the investigations to continue). All of this is feeding into a strong perception of impunity by the public towards the EP, that has the potential to strongly harm the EPs democratic legitimacy. Furthermore, it leaves open questions about the influence that foreign actors may have or may have had over the development of EU policies. In fact, it looks like Qatar, for example, has paid its agents inside the EP with the objective of stifling critiques to its human rights record, and in an attempt to facilitate an agreement for visa-free travel with the EU (which was suspended after the scandal came to light). This is extremely troubling considering that the EP is the EU institution which is usually seen as the most vocal critique of violations of human rights around the world.

The European Parliaments internal response

The EP responded in September by voting a set of reforms which came into effect in November. These include the obligation for MEPs to declare inputs and suggestions from external actors, more transparency on the publication of meetings with representatives from third countries, expanded definition of conflicts of interest, wider rules on the publication of meetings so they apply to all MEPs and cover meetings with third country representatives, extended threshold to declare additional incomes, obligation to declare assets at the beginning and end of every term in office, a stronger role for the Advisory Committee, and restrictions on unofficial groupings activities. Despite this, several claims were made, including by MEPs themselves, that these rules are not enough, and that much more effort should be directed to improve transparency and fight corruption. A currently ongoing positive development is the discussions which concerns the creation of an EU inter-institutional ethics body. However this would only be a standards setting body, and the Council still seems uncertain about joining, so it remains to be seen how effective this will be in tackling EU-wide corruption, including in the EP.

Russias agents

On the front of the spying allegations, at this stage there is only one MEP who is being investigated. The allegations were launched in January by a Russian Independent investigative newspaper the Insider, against Tatjana Zdanoka, who used to be part of the Greens in the EP until when she refused to condemn Russias invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and is currently sitting as a non-attached MEP. The claims of the Insider, supported by several leaked documents (in addition to dubious voting records by the MEP, including on the Russian invasion of Ukraine), revolved around the possibility that Zdanoka has been a Russian agent since at least 2015. Following the allegations, which she denied, she is currently being investigated by both Latvia's State Security Service (VDD), and by an EP internal investigation. While it remains to be seen how this will turn out, three Latvian MEPs have claimed that there may be others like her in the EP.

Can we trust the European Parliament?

With over 400 million people eligible to vote in the upcoming European Elections in June, the facts which concern both Qatargate and the spying allegations are extremely disturbing. At a time where anti-democratic forces both inside the EU and beyond are gaining influence, the European Elections should be a way to showcase the health of European Democracy, but if serious democratic threats such as the ones which were identified in this article are allowed to reign free, the trust of European citizens towards the EU can only be hurt. As such, preserving the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament must remain the absolute priority. Despite this, especially with Qatargate, the results of the investigations until now have been extremely disappointing, considering that there is extensive proof of the crimes committed by the people involved. For this reason, in line with the Democracy Under Pressure campaign, this article may be seen as a call to European Officials to take these threats seriously and do all they can to make sure that any culprit is identified and charged, and to make sure that these facts will not repeat themselves again at any point in the future. Ultimately, preserving the trust of the European citizens towards the only directly democratically elected body in the EU, is necessary to protect European Democracy.

Visit link:

Democracy Under Pressure at the EU Level - The New Federalist - Le Taurillon