Category Archives: Federalist

Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected former President Donald Trumps claim of executive privilege, holding that the archivist of the United States could provide a tranche of Trumps presidential records to the Houses Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

In a unanimous ruling, the federal appellate court concluded that President Bidens conclusion that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States controlled and that the archivist, therefore, must hand over the first of three sets of documents requested. The court added, however, that it would await an assessment from the Biden administration before determining whether other sets of documents must likewise be handed over.

Judge Patricia Millett, a Barack Obama appointee, authored the 68-page opinion that fellow Obama appointee Robert Wilkins and Biden appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. In rejecting Trumps request that the court enjoin the archivist from providing the House Select Committee copies of his presidential papers, the federal appellate court considered the controlling preliminary injunction standard that asks whether the moving partyhere Trumphas established a likelihood of success on the merits, shows irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, demonstrates that the equities favor an injunction, and proves that the injunction is in the public interest.

The courts analysis in Trump v. Thompson focused mainly on the first factor and whether Trump held a likelihood of success on the merits. He did not, according to the D.C. Circuit, which concluded Trump executive privilege claim failed because a rare and formidable alignment of factors supports the disclosure of the documents at issue.

President Biden has made the considered determination that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States given the January 6th Committees compelling need to investigate and remediate an unprecedented and violent attack on Congress itself, the court said. Further, Congress has established that the information sought is vital to its legislative interests and the protection of the Capitol and its grounds. Finally, the Political Branches are engaged in an ongoing process of negotiation and accommodation over the document requests, the court explained, noting its hesitancy to circumvent that process.

Although the court considered the other preliminary injunction factors, those merely bolstered the courts conclusion that Trump was not entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing the release of his documents.

Given the important legal issue in play, namely executive privilege, it seems likely Trump will seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In doing so, Trumps legal team would be wise to follow the lead of the presidents former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who just Wednesday filed a complaint in federal court against Houses January 6th Select Committee and the individual committee members.

Meadowss lawsuit alleges the defendants are seeking to illegally compel Meadows to provide documents and testimony to the committee and that the committee illegally subpoenaed the former chief of staffs cellular provider, Verizon Wireless.

Meadows took to the federal D.C. district court after the Houses Select Committee warned him that if he refused to provide the documents to the committee and to testify voluntarily, he would be cited for contempt. Verizon Wireless had also informed Meadows that it had received a subpoena from the committee and intended to provide Meadows private cellular information unless it received a court document challenging the subpoena by December 15, 2021.

Over the course of 40-plus pages, Meadows presents a litany of reasons the subpoenas are invalid, but his first argumentthat the subpoenas are invalid because they were not issued by a duly authorized committeeboth presents Meadows with a strong argument to quash the subpoenas and provides Trump fodder in his separate lawsuit and claim of executive privilege.

House Resolution 503 created the January 6, 2021, Select Committee, Meadowss argument begins, then stressing that Section 2(a) of that resolution requires House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader. But Speaker Pelosi has appointed only nine members to the Select Committee: seven Democrats and two Republicans, the complaint alleges. None of these members was appointed from the selection of five GOP congressman put forth by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Meadowss lawsuit continues.

Because Speaker Pelosi failed to appoint the requisite number of members, as mandated by House Resolution 503, it was not a duly constituted Select Committee, Meadowss lawsuit argues. Without establishing a duly constituted Select Committee, as mandated in the Resolution, the nine members lack the authority to act under House Resolution 503, the argument continues, including by issuing subpoenas under Section 5(c)(6) of House Resolution 503.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ignored the problem caused by Pelosis unprecedented refusal to seat Republican Reps. Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, which led to only two representatives with Rs behind their names, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, agreeing to serve on the committee.

Further, while House Resolution 503 provides for business to be conducted by a quorum of members, the problem here is not the number of members participating but the number of congressmen appointed to the committee. Also, because House Resolution 503 requires the appointment of 13 members, Pelosis failure to appoint the requisite number of committee members means the select committee was never properly constituted. That failure, Meadows lawsuit argues, renders the Select Committee invalid and without the authority to issue subpoenas.

A court may hesitate to hold that the Select Committee was never properly constituted because Republicans, by refusing to accept committee appointments, prevented Pelosi from complying with House Resolution 503s mandate that 13 members be appointed to the Select Committee. But such parliamentary maneuvers are par for the course for Congress, and courts readily require Congress and congressional committees to comply with their own rules.

Here, the Democrats didnt: They failed to appoint five Republicans to the select committee as required by House Resolution 503. Unless there is a properly constituted select committee, the purported committee members should lack the authority provided under the resolution.

Pelosis refusal to seat Jordan and Banks on the select committee proves significant for a second reason that segues back to Trumps case and his claim of executive privilege: It proves that the supposed probe into the events of January 6, 2021 is an unserious political ploy and a court should take that reality into account in balancing the competing interests.

Once in focus, one can see there is a strong interest in preserving executive privilege, and none in pushing a partisan dog and donkey show trial.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

The rest is here:

This Lawsuit Raises Trumps Best Defense Against The Jan ...

Its no secret that corporate reporters arent the most poised or articulate about handling or talking about guns, but a recent interaction between ABC News reporter Devin Dwyer and a mother of five in New York might take the cake.

ABC News aired a segment on Tuesday night previewing the laws and background of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for on Wednesday. The coverage is part of the corporate outlets larger Rethinking Gun Violence series, which is often used to amplify anti-gun activists war on firearms.

In the interview, Dwyer asks Cheryl Apple, a small business owner and recent first-time gun owner, to justify why she felt the need to apply for an unrestricted license to carry her 9 mm pistol. Her response to Dwyer is perfect.

Do we really want a whole bunch of Cheryls running around with pistols in the grocery store? Dwyer asked.

Yeah, we probably do because Cheryl is trained, Apple replied indignantly. I feel proficient with my weapon, I feel secure with my weapon, and I feel confident with my weapon. I dont think the Cheryls are the one[s] out there that are hurting people and committing the crimes and being unsafe with their guns.

Apple told Dwyer earlier in the segment that she petitioned the state for permission to carry her gun so that she could feel safe in her neighborhood near Albany, N.Y., which has experienced a recent uptick in violent crime. Scenes of her pistol training with an instructor at an indoor range played over a voice track explaining that it took her 10 months to complete steps including a background check, a safety seminar, and even an interview with a judge before she was approved to protect herself.

That footage and the long process Apple went through before she was allowed to carry her firearm, however, didnt stop Dwyer from asking his second ignorant question of the day.

You ever worried you might make a mistake, accidentally shoot somebody or shoot the wrong person? Dwyer pressed.

No, no I dont, Apple confidently explained. I would have before I took this class but now I dont, not at all.

His assertion is not quite as bad as the political journalist in Vermont who said his first time shooting an AR-15 felt like a meteor had struck the earth. But it definitely casts doubt on his ability to understand that there shouldnt be a problem with good guys who are properly accredited, trained, and always practice gun safety while carrying a firearm for self-defense.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Link:

Based Mom Schools Reporter On Why Good Guys Should Have Guns

News stories come and go every year, but what we remember are the people at the center of them. The Federalist staff has a few of those people in mind, for better or worse, that stood out in 2021. Here are our picks for the winners and losers of 2021.

Winner: Parents

Some of the biggest winners this year were parents who saw the radicalization of their childrens education and fought back. What started as fighting against the tyrannicalteachers unionsand schools that wanted to keep kids at homeglued to screensin the name ofprotecting them from COVIDmorphed into a national movement of peopleyoung and old who saw somethingwrong in their communities and did something about it.

Parents upset by theprevalent racismandradical gender ideologyin their childrens schools found their voices in social media groups and at protests, spoke out at school board meetings despitehurdles created by schoolsand theBiden administration, learned how to file open records requests, and, in some cases, even gained enough traction tovote out corrupt and woke school officialsand replace them with better candidates. Parents inLoudoun County specifically are highlighted in The Federalists documentary Meet The Parents: How The Moms And Dads Of Loudoun County Took Back Virginia.

[WATCH: Meet The Parents: How The Moms And Dads Of Loudoun County Took Back Virginia]

Loser: Anthony Fauci

It should be no surprise that Fauci is at the top of the loser list this year. In addition to being a complete political hack whomoves the goalpoststo suitwhatever agendakeeps him onTVand in the good graces of thecorporate media, reports released this year found that Faucilied to Congressabout funding for gain-of-function research,colludedwith Big Tech tocensor conservatives, and evenauthorized the torture of beaglesin the name of science. Emails obtained by corrupt media who wereunwilling to criticizeFauci also detailed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases directors tendency tohidekeyCOVID-19 information from the public to protect himself.

Winner: Kyle Rittenhouse

Defamed and smeared as a white supremacist and domestic terrorist by President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the entire corporate press, Kyle Rittenhouse was vindicated by a jury of his peers last month year,acquitted on all counts and completely exonerated. The verdict affirmed what everyone who had seen video footage of that night of rioting in Kenosha, Wis., in August 2020 already knew: Rittenhouse was chased by a violent mob that meant to harm or kill him, and he shot three men, killing two of them, in self-defense. His victory in the courtroom was a powerfulreminder that the American judicial system, despite its flaws, can still work no matter what defamatory nonsense is spewed by our elites on social media.

Winner: Mexican drug cartels and migrant traffickers

The Biden border crisis, which began as soon as President Joe Biden took office in January and signed a raft of executive orders undoing most of former President Trumps successful border policies, has massively enriched the cartels and migrant smugglers who control northern Mexico. These criminal organizations force migrants to pay thousands for passage through cartel-controlled territory and over the border, often collecting information on migrants and their families and forcing them into debt bondage long after they have settled in the United States.

Thanks to Bidens failed border policies, which have created massive incentives for illegal immigration, cartel-associated smuggling networks are making billions in annual profits at the border. As long as Bidens policies remain in place,this will be the new normal: record levels of illegal immigration and record profits for the cartels that control the border.

Winners: Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers

In a year full of elite losers, two football stars won big for very different reasons. My winners for 2021 are Tom Brady who carried a host of fans with him to Tampa Bay and now looks poised not only to be in (and win?) Super Bowl LVI, but to clinch his fourth MVP title and Aaron Rodgers. Although Rodgers suffered a toe injury, missed a game with the Wuhan virus, and continues a rocky relationship with Green Bay, he showed some real tenacity and came out on top on vaccines and his bodily autonomy.

Losers: The Cuomo Brothers

Where to even begin with the losers? Honorable mentions include the entire Bachelor franchise, which went up in the woke flames and never recovered; the Pulitzer Prize board, whose credibility is just completely gone after Russiagate; and Jussie Smollett, who will never be the guy who didnt say this:

The losers of the year, however, are the Cuomo brothers, who started on top of the world and couldnt have ended lower, mired in sexual scandal, exposed lethal policies, corruption, and an embarrassing resignation and termination. Farewell, losers. You wont be missed.

Winner: Kim Kardashian West

In reality, Kim Kardashian West has been winning for many years now, but 2021 seems to be the year that the rest of the world truly started taking her seriously. Maybe its because it was the year she finally ditched her manic, genius husband (although thats no doubt a loss for her family and her children), or maybe its because she finally ended her familys iconic reality television show (only to start filming another). Whatever the reason, the wins keep coming to Calabasas.

Her most recent win is passing the California baby bar exam, also known as the First-Year Law Students Examination. She failed the exam three times during the last two years, but after finally passing, Kim is eligible to sit for the final bar exam.

Other wins include her October hosting of Saturday Night Live, which may have been one of the only funny episodes this season, as well as her growing name recognition in the world of high fashion. Kanye introduced Kim to the world of fashion, including design icons like Balenciaga and Fendi, but this year Kim proved she has style beyond what Kanye emails her. Besides winning fashion awards and launching her own high fashion lines, Kim dominated the fashion event of the year, Anna Wintours Met Gala, with her transgressive, faceless Balenciaga ensemble.

Loser: Travis Scott

The loser of the Kardashian-Jenner circle is not Kanye, who is sadly still pleading with Kim to come back to him (and refusing to sign the divorce papers), but Kylie Jenners partner and baby daddy, rapper Travis Scott. We already knew Travis was a loser when he committed to a second child with Kylie while still failing to commit to her in marriage, but the bigger loss this year happened at his November Astroworld music festival that left 10 fans dead in Houston.

Scott now faces a $750 million lawsuit and has angered the families of the victims after his first interview in which he failed to take any responsibility for the violent crowd. Even though Scott has a history of inciting music-festival crowds to ignore security and violently storm the stage, he has painted himself a victim of the tragic Astroworld incident, claiming his earpiece rendered him completely unaware of the stampeding crowd in front of him.

Loser: Simone Biles

Because she literally lost err, decided not to compete for her team at the 2021 Olympics.

Winner: Britney Spears

After being locked under the bondage of conservatorship for more than a decade, the princess of pop is finally free.In November, Britney Spears reclaimed her autonomy when an LA judge ruled the singers court-ordered conservatorship had finally run its course.

Reserved for those who suffer debilitating conditions, which include severe mental issues or old age, Spears spent years fighting for her freedom. The pop stars productivity over the 13 years since her conservatorships inception cast doubt the arrangement was ever needed, where the world-famous icon filled stadiums on three world tours with four new albums amassing a Forbes-estimated fortune of $60 million in the process, a fortune off-limits to the singer who earned it.

In June, Spears gave a full-throated plea for the conservatorship to end in her first public remarks on the arrangement that suffocated her for years.I truly believe this conservatorship is abusive, she said. Five months later, the judge agreed.

Losers:

Liz Cheney

Liz Cheney started the year off on a crusade to recruit Republican support for the Democrats snap impeachment of President Donald Trump in January. She finished the year fabricating evidence in pursuit of the same goal ridding the Republican Party of Trumps influence post-presidency.

In the end, only nine other Republicans voted with Cheney in support of conviction, several of whom had already declared their intent to do so. The futile effort offered a preview of bad year for the Wyoming lawmaker who now faces a competitive primary challenge from Trump-endorsed attorney Harriet Hageman.

After getting kicked from House leadership for her persistent antagonism of the Republican voter and efforts to undermine the conference she chaired, Cheney is now raking in money from the same donors who fund the Lincoln Project to save her hopes of securing a fourth term.

Lincoln Project

The Lincoln Project continued to expose itself as a haven for bad-faith grifters this year when the blue-dollar-funded PAC was caught staging a race hoax in Virginia.

Its leadership began to flee at the start of the year as the scandal-plagued group cratered under credible allegations of sexual misconduct against co-founder John Weaver, who resigned after 21 men came forward. Some were underage when Weaver allegedly approached them inappropriately.

A Democrat super PAC masquerading as Republican, the latter label given to the group by a complicit media establishment, the group founded to oppose Donald Trump has struggled to find relevance in an era of the post-Trump presidency. Just two weeks ago, Politico ran the headline, No one seems to like the Lincoln Project anymore.

Girls Sports

A lot of men are breaking records for women. On day one of his presidency, Joe Biden signed an executive order seeking the erasure of womens sports by mandating federally-funded schools allow biological males compete in female leagues.

Earlier this month, 22-year-old Lia Thomas, who spent three years swimming for the University of Pennsylvania as Will Thomas, set another record in the 1650-meter freestyle. In November, Thomas set records in the 200-meter and 500-meter freestyle races.

More womens records will be broken by more men competing as women.

Continue reading here:

The Federalist Staff's 2021 Winners And Losers Of The Year - The Federalist

Last week the corrupt medias penchant for spinning all things conservative caused a near-fatal case of whiplash.

The left began by chastising conservatives for supposedly building its own echo chamber, but by the next day, when news broke that Devin Nunes was resigning from Congress to serve as the CEO of Donald Trumps new media company, the complained-of conservative ecosystem merely represented grift. Both narratives are false, however, which is precisely why leftists peddled them so hard.

Axios launched the echo chamber accusation with its article titled, Right wing builds its own echo chamber. Conservatives are aggressively building their own apps, phones, cryptocurrencies and publishing houses in an attempt to circumvent what they see as an increasingly liberal internet and media ecosystem, the Axios article began.

The article then highlighted plans for the YouTube alternative Rumble and Trumps social media company, Truth Social, to expand their reach by taking the companies public. Also highlighted was the social app Gettr that former-Trump aide Jason Miller launched, as well as conservative efforts to compete in cryptocurrency, phones, cloud storage, and book publishing.

The bottom line, Axios closed, was that, Conservative media has been a powerhouse for a long time, but this phase of its expansion isnt just about more or louder conservative voices its about building an entire conservative ecosystem.

The refusal by conservatives to continue to consume the product of the increasingly deranged and unaccountable lefty media is not about building an echo chamber, however: It is about competition and choice. And branding these new business ventures an ecosystem and echo chamber merely reveal the lefts panic over their inability to control the narrative.

The corrupt media quickly put a brake on the echo-chamber attack when the day after Axios bemoaned the loosening of the lefts stranglehold over corporate America came news that Nunes would retire in January to serve as the new CEO of Trumps Truth Social company. No longer was the story about an ecosystem, it was now about grift.

How Devin Nuness new media job for Trump explains the GOP grift machine, the Washington Post headlined an op-ed by columnist Paul Waldman. Waldman supported his thesis by pointing out that with Republicans poised to win the House, Nunes was in line to become the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, which writes the nations tax laws.

There was a time when the Ways and Means chair was considered second only to House Speaker in prestige and power, the Post opinion piece continued. Leaving behind that likelihood, Waldman reasoned, showed Nuness supposed desire to get in on the grift.

Leave it to a liberal to think grift is foregoing the second most powerful position in the U.S. House of Representatives to accept a position in the private sector in a fledgling organization.

In reporting on Nuness announcement, The New York Timess Jonathan Weisman likewise focused on the fact that if the California representative continued his congressional career, he would assume the help of the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Republicans took control of the House, as they are favored to do. This move, Weisman declared, represented a signal by Nunes to where he thinks power lies in the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

Nuness decision to leave Congress to become Truth Socials CEO does represent a signaljust not the one Weisman claims. To see the reason behind the move, the Times congressional correspondent need only have re-read his article, where a handful of paragraphs later, Weisman wrote:

From his perch on the Intelligence Committee, he ran interference for Mr. Trump against accusations that his 2016 campaign had collaborated with Russian intelligence. Mr. Nunes also organized a united Republican front opposing the first impeachment of the president for withholding military assistance to Ukraine to pressure its government to dig up dirt on Mr. Biden.

That a longtime congressional correspondent could pen those lines and The New York Times could unironically publish them shows exactly why Nunes left Congress to lead Truth Social.

Having lived through the heyday of the Russia-collusion hoax, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Nunes fought to expose the truth of the Crossfire Hurricane disaster to the American public. Yet the corporate press fed the lies of the Democrat ranking member to the country instead. The California Republican saw a repeat of this ploy with the Ukraine impeachment proceedings. Hatred for Trump proved the breaking straw to the already biased establishment press.

Then came the censorship, limiting conservatives ability to counter the corrupt media. Again, Nunes experienced that firsthand, being shadow-banned by Twitter in 2018.

And if any more proof were needed of corporate cronies ability to control information, the burying of the Hunter Biden laptop story that implicated then-candidate Joe Biden in a pay-to-play scandal right before the 2020 election handed Nunesand our countrythe final piece of evidence.

So Nunes had a choice: Stay in Congress and chair the Houses most powerful committee as a Republican, limited by the Democrat-controlled executive branch, or surrender the cozy conclave and create an enterprise to counter the slant and censorship that over the last five years has grown exponentially. The left might not understand Nuness decision, but heres hoping it learns his reason soonand the hard way.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Read more here:

Right Responds To Cancel Culture By Building Its Own, Left Goes Nuts - The Federalist

President Joe Bidens new nominee to the U.S. Department of Education is a frequent promoter of the critical race ideology that parents around the nation have strongly opposed.

LaWanda Toney, the director of strategic communications at the National Parent Teacher Association (National PTA), was nominated by Biden to be assistant secretary for the Office of Communications and Outreach on Wednesday. While the White House bragged about Toneys experience in the media and education fields, her nomination appears to be another attempt by the administration to usher in an era of critical race-based thinking that parents and legislators across the United States have banded together to denounce.

In addition to her communications role, Toney also frequently co-hosts a National PTA podcast called Notes from the Backpack where she often discusses and promotes radical race and gender ideology with left-wing anti-racist and LGBT experts such as people from the Human Rights Campaign. In an Oct. 27 episode titled Supporting Students of Color, Toney asked her guest if he had any advice for parents of color whose children are experiencing things like bias or microaggressions, things like that at their school?

In another episode from September titled Talking Race and KidLit, Toney welcomed a conversation about diversity in childrens literature and discussed how to expose kids as young as elementary school to all kinds of people, people of different races, religions, sexual orientations, genders, and cultures. Toney also facilitated conversations about identity in a podcast called Our Culture is More than a Holiday, guns in a podcast titled How to Talk to Your Kid about Gun Violence, andmisinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines in a podcast with a bureaucrat from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Read the original post:

Biden's Newest Dept. Of Education Pick Is A Race And Gender Radical - The Federalist

The House January 6 committee admitted on Wednesday that it doctored a text message from Jim Jordan to Mark Meadows, as was first reported by The Federalist.

Following reporting by The Federalist that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his staff doctored a text message between Rep. Jim Jordan and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, the House Jan. 6 committee admitted over email that it did, in fact, doctor the text message.

As The Federalist reported on Wednesday morning, on Jan. 5, 2021, Jordan forwarded to Meadows a three-paragraph legal summary from attorney Joseph Schmitz, summarizing a four-page legal memorandum Schmitz had written regarding congressional certification of the 2020 presidential electoral vote count.

In a statement provided to The Federalist via email, a Democrat spokesman for the Jan. 6 committee confessed that the committee doctored the text message.

The Select Committee on Monday created and provided Representative Schiff a graphic to use during the business meeting quoting from a text message from a lawmaker to Mr. Meadows, the spokesman wrote. The graphic read, On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.

In the graphic, the period at the end of that sentence was added inadvertently, the spokesman admitted. The Select Committee is responsible for and regrets the error.

The Jan. 6 committee spokesman did not explain how one could inadvertently cut a sentence in half and eliminate the final two paragraphs of a detailed legal summary, nor did he explain why Schiff attributed the content of the text to Jordan, a lawmaker, rather than to Schmitz, the attorney who wrote it.

As The Federalist reported on Wednesday morning, the original Jan. 5 text to Jordan was written by Washington attorney and former Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz and included an attachment of a four-page draft Word document drafted by Schmitz that detailed Schmitzs legal reasoning for suggesting that Pence had the constitutional authority to object to the certification of electoral votes submitted by a handful of states. The piece that Schmitz had sent to Jordan was published at the website everylegal.vote the next morning and even included the same DISCUSSION DRAFT heading and timestamp as the document that Schmitz sent to Jordan.

In his statement, Schiff erased the final two paragraphs and the final clause of the first paragraph of the text message before inserting punctuation that was never there, all without disclosing what he was doing. The graphic displayed by Schiff, which was doctored to look like an exact screenshot, was similarly doctored, as it contained content that was never in the original message and eliminated content that was.

Good luck tomorrow! Schmitz texted Jordan on the evening of Jan. 5, including the Word document as an attachment. Schmitz then texted to Jordan a three-paragraph summary of his Word document, which Schiff sliced and diced and then attributed to Jordan.

The Jan. 6 committee has been roundly criticized for refusing to allow any Republicans appointed by House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., to sit on the committee. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., banned McCarthy from appointing any Republican members and instead hand-picked her own troops to run the chambers inquisition. According to a source familiar with the matter, Schiff never bothered to contact Jordan to ask about the text or confirm its contents, authorship, and veracity.

Multiple lawmakers contacted by The Federalist mocked Schiff for peddling an obviously doctored text, and said anyone even remotely familiar with Jordan would know that he was forwarding an analysis without comment given that he rarely, if ever, sends texts that span more than a word or two.

Thats just not Jims style, one lawmaker close to Jordan told The Federalist. Long, nerdy paragraphs might be my style, but thats not Jims style at all.

Plus, you have to remember what was going on at that time, the lawmaker noted. People were sending around these law review articles and debates left and right because we had an interest in learning the facts and getting them right. And if its somehow seditious in this country to debate or share a law review article on Alexander Hamiltons view on things, thats not really a country I want to be a part of anymore.

Another lawmaker close to Jordan laughed out loud when asked if Jordan would ever write out his own lengthy legal analyses via text.

If he texts at all, its usually something like yes or call me, that colleague said.

The idea that Jordan would sit down and punch out a long-winded legal argument via text is absurd, one individual who regularly talks to Jordan told The Federalist. Thats just not how he works.

Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.

Go here to see the original:

BREAKING: J6 Committee Admits It Doctored Text Between Jordan And Meadows - The Federalist

If Democrats are so sure that the legalities of abortion rights are firmly on their side, its a wonder that theyre relying so heavily on political and philosophical arguments to assert their case.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue another decision on abortion laws and leftists are understandably nervous given the ideological makeup of the bench. But rather than sticking to legal interpretations and demonstrating the foundations that guarantee a so-called right to abortion, they keep venturing off into warnings about democracy and public perceptions of the courts legitimacy.

New York Times leftist Charles Blow wrote this week that if the court allows states to put further restrictions on abortion laws, another civil war could break out. But dont worry, not that kind of civil war.

The civil war I see is not the kind that would leave hundreds of thousands of young men dead in combat, he wrote. That is not to say that we arent seeing spates of violence but rather that this new war will be fought in courts, statehouses and ballot boxes, rather than in the fields.

Wait a second. You mean citizens might begin pursuing their interests by voting and through the judicial system? They might even engage in the political process? Amazing.

Someone should let him know theres a less scary name for that kind of thing: democracy. Its not a new concept to anyone but Blow. Its how Americans have resolved our policy disputes for years.

Even on the court, liberals are making arguments that dont address the legal questions. Instead, they warn that some people (activist Democrats) wont approve of a decision that doesnt cut their way.

Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception, that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? Justice Sonia Sotomayor said during a hearing on an abortion-related case earlier this month. I dont see how it is possible.

Thats not an argument against addressing a policy dispute that might need legal remedy. Its a point in favor of higher civic competence among Democrats who dont understand the judicial system.

We dont know where the court will come down on the latest abortion battle. But judging from the way they talk, Democrats arent too confident that the legal merits are on their side.

Visit link:

New York Times Writer Fears Abortion Battle Will Lead To More Democracy - The Federalist

Liberals are three times more likely than conservatives to report people on social media to Big Tech companies for possible terms and regulations violations, a new poll suggests.

According to the Cato 2021 Speech and Social Media National Survey, of the 2,000 people polled, liberals, even moderate ones, were far more likely to encourage Big Tech-led censorship of their peers on apps such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

This behavior is highly tied to political ideology, the poll notes.

While 65 percent of strong liberals, 44 percent of moderate liberals, and 32 percent of moderates testified that they reported another user for sharing offensive content or false information, only 21 percent of moderate conservatives and 24 percent of strong conservatives said they did the same.

In addition to reporting people to Big Tech companies, 80 percent of strong liberals and 68 percent of moderate liberals said they have blocked or unfriended someone for their posts about politics or science. Only 48 percent of moderates, 44 percent of moderate conservatives, and 46 percent of strong conservatives reported doing the same.

The survey also found that altogether, conservatives are more likely than liberals to have personal or near personal experience of being penalized by social media companies for the content theyve posted to their accounts.

The poll reinforces an alarming trend indicating a shrinking level of tolerance and a desire for censorship among the left. In a recent poll of 850 private and public college, university, and trade school students spread across the United States, Generation Lab and Axiosfound Young Dems more likely to despise the other party.

While just 5 percent of young Republicans said they wouldnt be friends with someone who votes differently than they do, 37 percent of the young Democrats polled said they would end friendships based on voting records. An even higher number of Democrats, 41 percent, claimed they wouldnt support a business they knew had political allegiances to other parties while just 7 percent of Republicans said the same.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

View post:

Liberals 3X More Likely Than Conservatives To Report People On Social Media - The Federalist

Carrie, one writer to another, forgive me. It pains me to write this.

I am aSex and the Citysuper-fan. I have watched and re-watched every single episode of every season of the OG. Ive watched and re-watched both films. I even devoured every episode of theCarrie Diaries, a sweet, if one-dimensional window into Carries origin story.

So when my editors asked if I would reviewthe miniseries And Just Like That, I jumped at the opportunity. Paid to climb under the covers with Carrie and Big? What could be better?

It turns out almost anything. Shoving bamboo slits into my eyes. Swallowing hot coal. Running out of toilet paper after eating too much Indian food.

It was really that bad. Let me count the ways.

Spoilers below.

To start with the basics:SATCwas a COMEDY. Not only did I not laugh even once in the 90 minutes I spent watching this train wreck so you dont have to (youre welcome, by the way), I cried real tears. Gone was the cheeky banter and clever back-and-forth. In its place was tragedy SPOILER ALERT: Big dies! Via a Peloton!

What should have been a sexy, frothy, sparkly reunion was anything but. Even before Bigs fateful heart-attack-inducing Peloton ride, the chemistry between Noth and SJP was non-existent. Instead of sex in the city, we got one awkward masturbatory moment in the city. Definitively unsexy, but still not worth killing the guy over.

The other unforgivable character assassination was less literal but equally as frustrating. There have been myriad gossip columns about Kim Cattralls apparent off-screen drama with Sarah Jessica Parker and some of the other cast members. Whatever the reason, her decision not to join the reboot and revive Samantha is proving eminently wise.

But to explain her absence in the show, the first episode features an unbelievably clunky conversation between Charlotte and Carrie in which we learn that Samantha cut off her friendship with all three of the ladies because Carrie fires her as a publicist when publishing becomes less lucrative. Samantha might not have had any qualms about being the other woman and coming between a man and his wife, but she was fiercely loyal to the people she cared about. Her exit plotline is even less plausible than Noths death-by-Peloton incident, and it would have been better had she just died of Covid, or even chlamydia.

But neither Samanthas absence nor Bigs death was the biggest problem with the reboot. Most offensive was the shows propensity to get offended by everything.

The premier opens with Carrie having an updated media career. Instead of writing a column and reporting to an editor, she is a co-host on a podcast, where she reports to the moderator.

But the podcast is really just a vehicle to demonstrate how woke the reboot is. Carrie is introduced in its early moments not as Carrie Bradshaw, legendary sex columnist or author, but as Carrie Bradshaw, a cisgender woman. The one good moment comes when one of Carries co-hosts asks her what Barneys is and finally, FINALLY, with a microscopic nod to how absurd our culture has become, Carrie replies, Now, that is offensive.

Woke-ism is shoved into the plotline again through Mirandas career change. Apparently tired of watching political issues from the sidelines, the once hugely ambitious and career-oriented lawyer quits her lucrative job to study human rights at Columbia University. Her first day of school is replete with microaggressions that the audience is, what, supposed to learn from? Try not to emulate? As if Americans needed more of a reminder of just how much we cant say anymore.

The irony here is that the original show was never appropriate. It was never supposed to be appropriate. You wanted appropriate, you werent watching Sex and the City. There were explicit sex scenes, terrible language, and awful moral examples set by the characters.

But that was the point. It was absurd. It was outrageous. It was fun. It was what escapist entertainment is supposed to be about.

Instead, we now have a handbook on how to be anti-racistand how to grapple with early widowhood! I couldnt help but wonder: who the h-ll would watch that?

Read the original post:

'And Just Like That' Proves It's Time To Put 'Sex And The City' to Bed - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Christopher Kimball of Milk Street joins Federalist Publisher Ben Domenech to share tips from his new book Milk Street Vegetables Cookbookand offer his advice on the best ways to prepare food for the holidays.

Cooking whats available is what people used to do until fairly recently. So instead of planning your meals ahead of time, based on looking at a recipe, if you start the other way around, the way people have for tens of thousands of years, thats really helpful because then you also become a better cook because you adapt to whatever is good, Kimball said. So sometimes its better to cook with what you have or what you can find, and for a lot of people thats the reverse, but I think thats probably the better way to do it if you want to take the time to figure it out.

When it comes to cooking for a particular occasion, Kimball said you dont always have to diverge from your normal kitchen routine.

I dont feel a great need, especially around the holidays, to actually do something different, Kimball explained. There are times when I do like to completely improvise, and once in a while, I would.

View original post here:

Chef Christopher Kimball Shares What's Cooking This Christmas - The Federalist