<A federal appeals court ruled that limits targeting "ghost guns" enacted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives are unlawful.

"Ghost guns" are sold online as kits and require the purchaser to assemble them at home. Because the parts were not considered functioning firearms, they could be sold without serial numbers, and the purchasers were not required to undergo background checks.

In 2022, the ATF updated the definitions of the terms "firearm," "frame," and "receiver" under the Gun Control Act of 1968 so "ghost gun" kits would be covered under the law.

A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ATF overstepped its authority when updating the definitions.

U.S. Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote that the ATF's rule on ghost guns "flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy."

"ATF, in promulgating its final rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to 'do something' with respect to gun control," he added. "But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation."

The Department of Justice is expected to appeal the decision. The case is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court.>

Who gives a hairy rodent's fundament about the safety of the people? Who gets their baksheesh after handing down such rulings?

<The regulars realize that responding to this attention-seeking troll is pointless, as the contrived trash posting (repeat conversations with himself) will continue endlessly in three different forums. The often-lying tattle tale troll hopes for adulation from the administration that is otherwise not received from paying members who pay no attention -- except a bone from his hero perd who encourages the various rages, personal attacks. Shame, shame, shame. This deplorable troll attitude from the Rogoff page is to "gang up on" and mischaracterize, degrade other members ala Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Jerry Nadler, etc. [sic] did in the "Russian collusion hoax" concocted and paid for by the 2016 Clinton campaign and corroborated by the weaponized FBI narrative that has blatantly, outrageously gone on needlessly, dishonestly for years. The country has been put through hellacious hell all on a whopper lie using the federal system and repeated by the media on a daily basis in an attempt to throw the election and then wrongfully impeach a sitting president. Why should CG members suffer the same fanciful falsified attacks? Good members continue to leave the website, or spend much less time here than before.

These repeat posts are a clear, exaggerated, on-going violation of guidelines #2 and #6:

<No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.>

<No trolling.>

I won't even bother listing the other guideline violations.

Yet CGs rarely enforces the guidelines nor takes out the trash, and never fully so when/if it does. It's disgusting how such repeat garbage, repeat garbage, repeat garbage, repeat garbage, repeat garbage, repeat garbage, repeat garbage, repeat garbage, etc. etc. is given a free pass to remain when far more useful, factual posts are quickly deleted. The litter just sits in multiple forums rotting away. Dishonesty and mischaracterization of members is promoted without recourse, a sickening sprawling weed. Such troll trash makes the website look really bad, unmanaged on a regular basis.

<Our silence never confers agreement.> It's not worth the time of day to respond to the constant inutile crowing of a confessed schizophrenic.

<On Nov. 3, Eric Trump once again arrived at 60 Centre Street in downtown Manhattan, a courthouse “Law & Order” viewers would recognize instantly. He was there, of course, not for a stint as an extra, but for his second day of testimony in the New York attorney general’s civil fraud case against him, his father, his brother Don Jr., and others. And before Eric Trump could retake the witness stand, his dad’s lawyer, Chris Kise, decided to revisit one of his team’s favorite themes: the purportedly partisan bias of Judge Arthur Engoron and his principal law clerk.

But this time, Kise was focused not on how the two interact during the trial but on their conduct outside the courtroom. Alluding to “allegations that I looked at in the news this morning,” Kise insisted there was “at least a plausible basis to have to raise considerations of bias” because of “contributions to partisan political activity” that, in Kise’s description, violate Section 100.5(c)(2) of New York’s Rules of Judicial Conduct. At that point, Kevin Wallace, the senior lawyer on the attorney general’s team, seemed confused and asked Kise what report he was referencing. Kise responded, with the caveat that he is not the Trump side’s “internet person,” that he believed it was on the far-right site Breitbart.

Indeed, a Breitbart story published a day earlier aired new allegations about Engoron’s principal law clerk, who has been the subject of multiple attacks by Donald Trump and his legal team that led Engoron to impose a gag order on all of them. Specifically, Breitbart alleged, based on a review of New York State campaign finance data, that the law clerk has made contributions to individual candidates, local Democratic clubs, PACs and the New York County Democrats in amounts and at times that would appear to violate the rule Kise cited.

By Monday, the same day Donald Trump testified, Team Trump went further, telling Engoron that as soon as the AG’s team rested, they intended to move for a mistrial based on unspecified issues that Trump’s lawyers represented would be covered by the gag order but did not relate to their usual complaint: the notes Engoron and his clerk have exchanged. The judge then ordered them to present him with the motion in writing, with a proposed briefing schedule and hearing time, and pledged to return it quickly. Yet no such motion appears on the docket, and a source familiar with the litigation tells me that if such a motion was made under seal or through a similar process, it has not been served on the state.

Nonetheless, the arguments I expected would end up in the promised mistrial motion surfaced on Friday in a different form: a five-page letter to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct from House GOP conference chair Elise Stefanik. And although the letter begins with some partial and misleading quotations from a 2022 hearing and a trial day last week, the thrust of Stefanik’s charges of judicial intemperance and partisan bias come from the same Breitbart article initially floated by Kise on Nov. 3. Citing that piece, she accuses both Engoron and his principal law clerk of flouting the rules against partisan political contributions.

Perhaps most interestingly, while Stefanik is many things — a Harvard alumna, a former White House aide, and most recently, a mom — she is not a lawyer. But her letter is heavily footnoted, including with cites to New York cases, including some concerning the statute of limitations, and conforms with conventions of legal citation, including the telltale ibid., a fancy, lawyerly way of citing to the immediately prior source.

That doesn’t mean, much less prove, Stefanik’s letter was authored by Trump lawyers. But it bears note that the particular method of her complaint and the use of her voice offer some tactical advantages. (Neither Stefanik's office nor a representative for Trump immediately responded to NBC News' requests for comment.)....>

<....First and foremost, to the extent that the principal law clerk’s alleged campaign contributions, which we have independently viewed, violate one or more New York rules governing judges and their personal appointees, one lawyer familiar with these rules and their implementation says the remedy for such misconduct would be discipline, not the overturning or invalidation of any decision in the case or even the removal of the presiding judge. Team Trump might have reached the same conclusion and decided against moving for a mistrial.

Second, Stefanik is not only arguably Trump’s most reliable and prominent Republican backer in New York State; she is also a member of Congress who is not subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act. As a result, if her letter was drafted or edited by anyone affiliated with the defense, journalists have no way of uncovering that through the kind of public records requests that, for example, have revealed political machinations between and among executive agencies.

And third, unlike a mistrial motion that Engoron himself could deny virtually on receipt and that would take months if not longer to appeal, a complaint to the state’s judicial conduct commission cannot be dismissed “without authorization by the Commission,” which meets “several times a year.” That means the allegations in Stefanik’s letter could swirl, without any resolution, for some time before the commission can determine whether it warrants investigation or should be dismissed.

Whether, in fact, Engoron and/or his clerk have, in fact, run afoul of the rules on the basis of their contributions remains to be seen. The rules not only allow candidates for judicial office greater latitude in the months before and after their runs, but also pertain only to contributions to political campaigns and “other partisan political activity,” a term that according to my source familiar with the ethics rules, might not include donations to local Democratic clubs, depending on their purpose.

In the meantime, a spokesman for the New York court system told The New York Times that “Engoron’s actions and rulings in this matter are all part of the public record and speak for themselves. It is inappropriate to comment further.”

Will Stefanik’s letter lead to an investigation or even discipline? Or will it simply fuel the MAGA movement’s ire toward an elected judge and his law clerk? Watch this space.>

Yet another who might actually have a care for her constituents, rather than playing toady for her Fuehrer.

<Former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy lashed out at the band of House Republicans who voted to oust him last month, saying the party would be better off if his chief GOP nemesis, Rep. Matt Gaetz, was gone.

Republicans would benefit "tremendously" if Gaetz, R-Fla., who called for the vote to remove him, were no longer in office, McCarthy said in a CNN interview.

He also had critical words for Representatives Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Tim Burchett of Tennessee, who were among the eight GOP members to join with House Democrats in support of Gaetz' motion.

"It seemed out of nature," McCarthy said of their votes, adding that he believes Mace and Burchett "seemed to just want the press and the personality."

McCarthy also said he believes Mace will face a difficult run in 2024 for her third term in the House.

"If you've watched just her philosophy and the flip flopping, I don't believe she wins reelection. I don't think she'll probably have earned the right to get reelected," McCarthy told CNN.

The rule allowing any one member to motion to remove the speaker, which McCarthy conceded in order to be elected back in January, remains in place. However, the former speaker called the move against him "personal" and said it would not be smart for the House to go through a repeat with new Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.

"I don't think anybody can make a motion to vacate for the rest of the term," McCarthy said. "I think he's safe regardless."

McCarthy said his removal did nothing to solve the bigger issue of intraparty division within the House majority.

"We're still wondering whether government's going to be shut down or not," McCarthy said. "We're going to have to heal ourselves to be able to serve the people.">

How ya gonna like them apples, perv? Bottom rail's gonna be on top!

<Newly-elected House Speaker Mike Johnson is facing fierce backlash from Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters online after he indicated there is insufficient evidence to move forward with formal impeachment proceedings into President Joe Biden.

The Republican Party has been at the center of chaos since the ousting of Kevin McCarthy as House speaker in a historic 216-210 vote on October 3 when Representative Matt Gaetz spearheaded an effort to remove him. Following Representative Jim Jordan's failed bid for the speakership, Johnson was elected to the position. This comes after then-speaker McCarthy announced in September that House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer would lead the impeachment inquiry against Biden over his family's business dealings.

Since September, momentum behind the effort has waned as House Republicans have not put forth any direct evidence that Biden profited from his son Hunter Biden's work despite Comer's announcement into the president receiving a $200,000 loan repayment from his brother, which spurred mockery online about the validity of the claim.

Meanwhile, the White House continues to maintain Biden's innocence as Ian Sams, the White House spokesman for oversight and investigations, wrote in an X, formerly Twitter, post in October that Comer was "desperate" to distract from the inability of Republicans to select a House speaker at the time.

In a Friday report from The Washington Post, Johnson, who has publicly and privately been urging members to conduct a thorough and fair investigation with no predetermined outcome, indicated in a closed-door meeting with House GOP moderates this week that there is insufficient evidence at the moment to move forward with formal impeachment proceedings.

"We'll just go where the evidence goes and we're not there yet," Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, told the newspaper. "Most of us are saying, we can't even get a single Democratic vote on this right now. I think the voters will reject what they are seeing when it comes to Biden [policies] — but high crimes and misdemeanors? I don't think we've seen that or enough data to really make a good case and I feel like [Johnson] really agreed with us on that."

According to The Washington Post, Johnson also told reporters that he has been "intellectually consistent" in cautioning against a rushed investigation during a news conference last week despite previously accusing Biden during a Fox News interview of bribing or pressuring a foreign leader to fire Ukraine's top prosecutor in order to benefit Hunter Biden's business dealings by wielding taxpayer resources.

Newsweek has reached out to Johnson and the White House via email for further comment.

In response, hard lined Republicans took to X to criticize the House speaker for his stance.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia mentioned McCarthy's support in launching the impeachment inquiry while taking aim at Johnson.

"After 8 R's and all D's ousted him, we found checks to Joe Biden and evidence of a massive money laundering scheme and now the new guy you are told is way better doesn't want to impeach. Such progress," the congresswoman wrote.

Laura Loomer, conservative host of Loomer Unleashed, wrote, "I told you all Speaker Johnson was full of S***! And I was attacked for not supporting him as Speaker of the House! On July 20th he said that Joe Biden and his family are 'hopelessly corrupt'. Today, Johnson said 'There is insufficient evidence at the moment to initiate formal impeachment proceedings.'"

She continued: "Remember when I told you all that the @HouseGOP was never going to Impeach Biden? And to think that Mike Johnson had the audacity to go on @seanhannity and gaslight the American people into thinking that he actually cared about accountability and truth, because we live in a Constitutional Republic. MIKE JOHNSON IS A RINO CONMAN!"

While MAGA supporter Kelli Kay simply wrote on X, "WRONG! There's more than enough evidence from Afghanistan to Iran!">

<Former President Trump’s gag order in his Washington, D.C. 2020 election interference case has been deemed unconstitutional by law professor Jonathan Turley.

The gag order, temporarily lifted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is being reviewed while Trump’s appeals play out.

Trump’s attorneys argue that the gag order violates his First Amendment rights.

“No court in American history has imposed a gag order on a criminal defendant who is actively campaigning for public office — let alone the leading candidate for President of the United States,” Trump’s attorneys wrote. “The Gag Order violates the First Amendment rights of President Trump and over 100 million Americans who listen to him.”

The order blocks Trump from making statements targeting Special Counsel Jack Smith and others involved in the case but allows him to assert his claims of innocence.

Turley criticizes the expanded gag order requested by Smith as unconstitutional.

“They decided in perhaps an abundance of caution to order this stoppage until they can give it a full review,” Turley said.

“The reason I think this could be quite significant is because I think the order is unconstitutional. I said that when it was first issued.”

Turley believes it is a “very odd concept of an order because the court here insisted on having this trial before the election – sort of shoehorned it in before Super Tuesday – and everyone in this election’s going to be talking about these cases except one person under this gag order and that is Donald Trump.”

The purpose and impact of the gag order are being questioned, and the case may reach the Supreme Court.

“What is the purpose of this” order? Turley pressed.

“If you’re silencing not only one of these leading candidates in the election where this is being debated but he can’t even criticize his former opponent Michael Pence or the witnesses bringing evidence against him that I think is pretty problematic and she’s going to have a hard time – the court, that is – to sustain this if not from the D.C. circuit, the Supreme Court.”

“And if it goes to the Supreme Court that could very well cause issues with her scheduling.”>

<There is something very wrong with the priorities of the Republican National Committee.

During the third GOP primary debate on Wednesday, candidate Vivek Ramaswamy called on RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel to resign, citing the party's struggles in recent elections.

He labeled the GOP a "party of losers," reminding viewers of the "red wave that never came" in 2022 and the latest election losses suffered by Republicans on Tuesday.

I’m sick and tired of this Republican Establishment that has made us a party of losers. Where is the accountability for years of losing: 2018, 2020, 2022 and now last night? I’m calling on @GOPChairwoman to resign tonight. pic.twitter.com/8hxVqWGlwL

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) November 9, 2023

Ramaswamy also criticized the RNC for allowing the debate to be dominated by the establishment media and said conservative figures like Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk should have been chosen as hosts instead.

Indeed, GOP voters seem to be tuning out as the issues that actually matter to them are overlooked. The third debate saw a more than 40 percent drop in viewership compared to the first debate held in August, according to the New York Post.

(With the announcement of the hosts of the fourth debate, it does look like the RNC is trying to address concerns that establishment media moderators are inhibiting substantive discussion.)

But despite the clear need for change, the RNC last month seemed more worried about guarding its monopoly on the debate process.

Five Republican presidential candidates were invited to take part in a "Thanksgiving Family Forum" hosted by The Family Leader, set to take place on Friday in Iowa, according to CNN. Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of The Family Leader, is an important Christian figure in conservative politics.

The RNC sent the candidates a letter warning them not to participate.

"It has come to the attention of the RNC Counsel's Office that several Republican presidential candidates have been invited to participate in an open-press event in Iowa in November at which they would 'gather around the table to have a moderated, friendly, and open discussion about the issues,'" the Oct. 28 letter obtained by Real Clear Politics said.

"In other words, a debate."

In order to qualify for the RNC debates, the candidates had to sign a pledge vowing not to participate in any others.

"Accordingly, please be advised that any Republican presidential candidate who participates in this or other similar events will be deemed to have violated this pledge and will be disqualified from taking part in any future RNC-sanctioned presidential primary debates," the letter warned.

Sounds like a pointless power trip that would have snubbed evangelical voters.

Thankfully, Ramaswamy, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott had better sense than to ignore this important demographic. They all agreed to attend the event despite the RNC's warning, according to CNN.

DeSantis in particular was resolute in his decision to participate.

"I think it’s an important part of this process. It’s been a part of this process for a long time. There’s no way that should cause the RNC to penalize any candidate,” the governor said, adding that he told Vander Plaats "I’ll be [there] no matter what happens.”

Perhaps realizing that the candidates hold all the cards, the RNC caved.

"The Forum is NOT a debate. Thus, the RNC is giving a thumbs up for candidates to participate," Vander Plaats announced on Saturday.

The RNC and I have agreed on the format of @TheFamilyLeader November 17 Thanksgiving FAMiLY Forum. The Forum is NOT a debate. Thus, the RNC is giving a thumbs up for candidates to participate. Thanks to the RNC for facilitating a win/win for the process. #ChooseWell2024

— Bob Vander Plaats (@bobvanderplaats) November 11, 2023

So what did we learn from this saga? The RNC is happy to elevate hostile media outlets, but not a well-respected faith forum. This sends the wrong message about conservative priorities.

The RNC would be wise not to discourage candidates from engaging with Christian leaders. Its poor track record demands more input, not less, from trusted evangelical voices.

The party simply can't risk further alienating a passionate base it can’t afford to lose.>

<Donald Trump has expressed anger at being compared to Adolph Hitler, but it's happening again after the ex-president's latest post honoring the Veteran's Day holiday.

On Saturday, Trump posted the following message to American veterans.

"In honor of our great Veterans on Veteran’s Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American Dream. The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave, than the threat from within. Despite the hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

That message struck some as familiar.

Media company MeidasTouch reported that Trump "echoes Hitler nearly verbatim" in his calls to destroy the "vermin," or liberals.

Tristan Snell, a former assistant attorney general in New York, added his take, as well.

Specifically, Snell quoted “This vermin must be destroyed. The Jews are our sworn enemies, and at the end of this year there will not be a Jew left in Germany.” — Hitler, 1939

Former Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger also pointed out the post.

"Meh. He's going to jail," Kinzinger wrote. "American veterans deserve a not insane leader."

Journalist Bill Grueskin said Trump's long-winded post is "a paragraph for readers who can't handle the subtle nuances of Mein Kampf," Hitler's book.

Another journalist, Radley Balko, wrote the following:

"The guy who's a coin flip to be the next president is using sort of language that has historically resulted in mass graves."

Presidential historian Michael Beschloss also chimed in.

"Today, 'in honor of our great Veterans,' ex-President demands on social media to 'root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country,'" he wrote on Saturday. "Please tell us if this reminds you of any earlier historical figure.">

<In light of the accountability campaign, the anti-crypto senators have been warned that the threat of terrorist financing using digital currencies is worse than they thought. The CfA sent letters to Senators Brown and Warren on Thursday stating info on using crypto in funding illegal activities, including money laundering.

Using digital currencies in cybercrimes and all other illegal activities has been an issue in the crypto space, and the nonprofit ethics group has reported new developments to the legal officials in discussing the Tron blockchain and Circle, the stablecoin issuer.

CfA letter to senators regarding cryptocurrencies

On November 9, The Campaign for Accountability (CfA), a nonprofit ethics group, sent letters to Senators Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren presenting information on allegations of illicit crypto use. The letter specifically informed on the money laundering and discussed the Circle and Tron platforms.

Signed by Michelle Kuppersmith, the CfA executive, the letter details allegations that the USD Coin issuer, Circle, has links to Tron Foundation by Justin Sun. The stable Coin issuer also has ties to Wall Street investors, including BlackRock, Bank of New York Mellon, and Goldman Sachs.

Kuppersmith also termed Circle’s actions as surprising, related to the connections it has with Wall Street. He [sic] highlighted the lack of regulation on the connections between Justin Sun’s company and terrorism financing.

Currently, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating Tron under allegations of selling unregistered securities. Additionally, the executive was even more surprised by the connections Tron has to terrorism by financing Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The letter also noted its possible financial links to Hezbollah and Hamas. USDC worth $400 million was found in the Tron network and related to illegal activities. The letter stated:

Recently published studies and reports of law enforcement operations indicate a prominent US-based cryptocurrency company backed by major Wall Street investment houses [Circle] may be directly or indirectly compromised by its integration with an Asia-based network of trading platforms and cryptocurrencies.

The letter added:

Tron has been named in multiple international law enforcement actions involving billions of dollars in transactions by alleged organized crime groups and sanctioned entities.

Concerns raised in the CfA letter

The concerns raised go beyond the senators, adding to over 100 other legislators, and issued to the National Security Advisory and Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Finance Intelligence. Kuppersmith’s reaction came in as expected as the CfA group advocates for justice taken against terrorism financing without bias on digital currencies.

The bipartisan group comprising of lawmakers sent the letter on October 17 and took issue and made several claims to the popular crypto players. Among other issues raised is Circle lacking regulation and operates under an unregistered cross-chain protocol.

The letter highlighted:

While Goldman, BNY, and Blackrock are all registered with and regulated by multiple federal and state banking and securities authorities, Circle has either avoided or failed to subject itself to primary prudential regulation since its founding a decade ago, a concern Campaign for Accountability flagged to the SEC in May of 2022.

CfA Letter

Recently, on November 10, the CfA suggested its comments regarding the Department of Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network proposal made in October. The comments targeted the designation of crypto mixers under money laundering hubs.

The CfA noted that the proposal “is worthwhile but may soon be obsolete unless the scope of the regulation is broadened to include newer methods criminal groups have adopted using virtual currencies.”

They also added on an X post, ” Despite being a US company, Circle has either avoided or failed to subject itself to primary or prudential regulation since its founding a decade ago, a concern Campaign for Accountability flagged to the SEC in May.”>

<Last week, Tim Miller, the gay Bulwark writer who was communications director for Jeb Bush’s campaign in 2016 but left the GOP, tweeted out that Matt Gaetz appeared to be “outing” the GOP Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Missouri Congressman Jason Smith.

You can watch the clip from Gaetz’s podcast here. Gaetz is extremely peeved that Smith attacked him for triggering the removal of Kevin McCarthy as House speaker. Gaetz played a clip of Smith saying, “Let me just tell you, if Matt Gaetz’s lips are moving, it’s only lies that’s coming out of it,” and calling Gaetz a “foolish liar.”

The vengeful Gaetz responded by saying Smith is the one who is “living a lie” and that every Republican in Congress knows about it:

Jason Smith says if my lips are moving, I’m lying. Well, you know what? If Jason Smith is breathing, he is living a lie. There might not be another member of Congress who lives a lie every day more than Jason Smith. And Jason Smith knows exactly what I’m talking about. And by the way, so does almost every member of the House Republican caucus.

So, there’s a good deal of projection in Jason Smith calling me a liar when it’s Jason Smith who literally has to live a lie. And I honestly pity him for that because you know, it wouldn’t be something that– I wouldn’t live that way. I’ll just put it that way. So, Jason, I would check yourself before you come at me with any accusations of being dishonest about what I say, when you’re dishonest about how you live and what you do.

So what do we know about Smith?

He has voted anti-LGBTQ for years—in office since 2013—with a score of zero from the Human Rights Campaign. He condemned the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision in 2015, saying he has “never wavered in my commitment to the biblical definition of marriage.”

Like most Republicans in the House, Smith voted against the Respect for Marriage last year, which protects same-sex marriage, and voted for the spending bills this year that added dozens of anti-LGBTQ provisions.

But unlike most Republicans in the House, Smith is 44 and single. And one of his closest friends in Congress for years—someone he traveled with on lavish trips—was none other than Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock, the closeted gay House member who resigned in 2015 amid a scandal that focused on his outrageous misuse of government funds, and eventually was indicted in 2016 for fraud and theft of government funds, among other charges.

Schock finally came out of the closet, announcing, “I am gay” in 2020.

Schock voted anti-gay throughout his time as a member of Congress—including against the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell"—even as rumors swirled about his sexual orientation. In earlier years, before becoming a House member, he flat-out denied he was gay, but during his time in Congress, he did everything to deflect from directly answering the question when asked.

When I approached him at the Republican National Convention in 2012 and asked if the rumors were true, he expressed outrage that I could even ask the question—but didn’t outright say no.

Asked on the floor of the RNC…to respond to those who’ve believed that Schock is gay and also view his vote against “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal was a vote against members of his own group, Schock responded, “Those questions are completely ridiculous and inappropriate.” He added, when asked if he is confirming that he is not gay, “I’ve said that before and I don’t think it’s worthy of further response. I think you can look it up.” Schock then walked off, abruptly ending the interview.

Of course, Schock was totally gay, as he would later confirm—and voting against LGBTQ people. And during that time, one of his closest friends in Congress was Jason Smith.

Attention was brought to their relationship when the spotlight focused on the luxurious trips Schock was taking, often spending taxpayer dollars. As reported by The Hill in 2018:>

<.....Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) joined his close friend Aaron Schock on campaign and government trips and exotic vacations in 2014 that are being scrutinized by federal investigators looking into alleged spending abuses by the former congressman, who resigned in March.

Revelations that Smith, 35, accompanied Schock on the campaign trip come the same week The Hill reported that Smith has hired Schock’s former chief of staff, Mark Roman, who managed the congressman’s office at the time of his spending scandal.

There’s no indication that federal prosecutors have questioned or sought records from Smith, but his participation on trips now under criminal investigation could drag one of Schock’s closest friends in Congress into his legal mess and undermine Smith’s political image as a humble, salt-of-the-earth fiscal conservative. The news has also led to chatter on Capitol Hill, where Roman’s hiring by Smith surprised many.

That story also reported on a trip that Smith took with Schock to Brazil along with two other House members, most of which was paid for by the Brazilian government.

But after the official business, the Hill reports, Schock, Smith, and several of their male aides headed to the Brazilian beach town of Canoa Quebrada, a gay-friendly resort spot.

Smith and Shock also went to Argentina with their aides, and the Hill reported on how unusual it was for members to take their aides on lavish vacations:

Later that December, Schock posted Instagram photos of himself, Smith, Roman, and Schock’s photographer, Jonathon Link, hanging out at a vineyard in the famed Mendoza wine region of Argentina and whitewater rafting the Andes rivers of Potrerillos. Schock paid Link thousands of dollars in taxpayer and campaign money to snap dramatic photos of him around the country and around the world.

Many of those photos ended up on Schock’s Instagram account. Some GOP aides said it was odd for lawmakers to be taking their staffers on exotic vacations.

As noted, one of the aides on both the Brazil trip and the Argentina trip was Roman, who, as the Hill reports, many were surprised Smith hired as his chief of staff, since he was managing Schock’s during the time of the spending scandal. Roman has now moved up from being Smith’s chief of staff to being staff director of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which Smith chairs.

All of this makes Gaetz’s podcast that much more interesting. Gaetz has been a MAGA supervillain doing what he can to take down the GOP establishment, causing complete chaos. And information is power, especially if it’s being used as a weapon.

I have no problem with the truth being reported about a public figure when it’s relevant—such as if that person is voting anti-LGBTQ. And Gaetz is actually outing the entire GOP here, noting that every Republican knows about Smith’s alleged closet—while most of them rail against LGBTQ people. I’d just rather see solid facts than innuendo used as a threat.

So please, Matt Gaetz, flesh out all the details, and let’s hear about all the other GOP hypocrites. We’re all here for it!>

<When Dave Bernstein, 87, started working at the U.S. Postal Service in February 1970, he was making $2.35 an hour.

To supplement his income, he also took on other work. Years later, Bernstein decided in 1992 to take a voluntary retirement.

"We knew there was going to be a reduced pension because of the early out," said Phyllis Bernstein, Dave's wife, who is 84.

But what came next was something the couple did not expect.

While Dave was expecting a monthly Social Security check of around $800, it ended up being just about half that amount – around $415 – even though he had earned the required 40 credits to be fully insured by the program. The benefits were adjusted based on rules for workers who earn both pension and Social Security benefits. More from Personal Finance:

Will Social Security be there for me when I retire?

Medicare open enrollment may cut retirees' health-care costs

How much your Social Security check may be in 2024

The couple, who reside in Tampa, Florida, have had a different retirement than they envisioned due to the lower income.

Phyllis kept working until she was 82. They have also turned to family for financial support.

Their lifestyle is frugal, with home-cooked meals and cars they kept for 20 years, or "until the wheels were falling off," the couple jokes.

But their limited resources have made traveling to Australia and New Zealand – Phyllis' dream – out of reach.

"When he retired, I was working," Phyllis said. "We just couldn't do the travel."

Today, Dave is pushing for the Social Security rules that reduced his benefits to be changed.

His union, the American Postal Workers Union, has endorsed the Social Security Fairness Act, a bill proposed in Congress that would repeal Social Security rules known as the Windfall Elimination Provision, or WEP, and Government Pension Offset, or GPO, that reduce benefits for workers had positions where they did not pay Social Security taxes, also called non-covered earnings.

The legislation has support from other organizations that represent public workers, including teachers, firefighters and police.

The bill has overwhelming bipartisan support in the House of Representatives – 300 co-sponsors – at a time when that chamber has been politically divided. That support recently prompted House lawmakers to send a letter to leaders of the Ways and Means Committee to request a hearing.

The Social Security Fairness Act has also been introduced in the Senate, with support from 49 leaders from both sides of the aisle.

Yet some experts say just getting rid of the rules may not be the most effective way of making the system fairer.

How the WEP, GPO rules work

The WEP applies to how retirement or disability benefits are calculated if a worker earned a retirement or disability pension from an employer who did not withhold Social Security taxes and qualifies for Social Security from work in other jobs where they did pay taxes into the program.

Social Security benefits are calculated using a worker's average indexed monthly earnings, and then using a formula to calculate a worker's basic benefit amount. For workers affected by the WEP, part of the replacement rate for the average indexed monthly earnings is brought down to 40% from 90%.

The GPO, meanwhile, reduces benefits for spouses and widows or widowers of recipients of retirement or disability pensions from local, state or federal governments.

Under the GPO, Social Security benefits are reduced by two-thirds of the government pension. If two-thirds of the government pension is more than the Social Security benefit, the Social Security benefit may be zero.

The impact of the rules is far reaching, according to Edward Kelly, general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters. Many firefighters work in second jobs in the private sector as cab drivers, bar tenders or truck drivers, where they earn credits toward Social Security....>

<....."They steal their money, because they're also public employees," said Kelly, who describes his union members as "passionately angry" about the issue.

"It affects hundreds of thousands, if not millions of public employees that paid into Social Security and essentially are being penalized because they also happen to be public servants, whether they are teachers, cops and, obviously, firefighters," Kelly said.

Why experts say another fix may be better

The WEP and GPO rules were intended to make it so workers who pay Social Security taxes for their entire careers are treated the same as those who do not.

But under those current rules, some beneficiaries receive lower benefits than they would have if they paid into Social Security for all of their careers, while others receive higher benefits, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Yet repealing the WEP and GPO rules would result in Social Security benefits that are "overly generous" for non-covered workers, research has found.

Part of what may create that advantage is that Social Security benefits are progressive, and therefore replace a larger share of income for lower earners. So someone who only has part of their salary history in Social Security may get a higher replacement rate without considering their pension income.

Fully repealing the WEP and GPO rules may also come with higher costs at a time when the program facing a funding shortfall. The change would add an estimated $150 billion to the program's costs in the next 10 years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Another way of handling the disparity may be to create a proportional approach to income replacement. Instead of the WEP, workers' benefits would be calculated based on all of their earnings and then adjusted to reflect the share of their careers that were in jobs covered by Social Security. A similar approach may be taken with the GPO.

Certain bills on Capitol Hill propose a proportional approach.

However, a proportional formula may not solve all the inequities in the current system, according to Emerson Sprick, senior economic analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center, which has prompted to think tank to work on refining its proposal.

'Extremely complex' to understand

An important advantage to reforming the current formulas would be making it easier for workers to understand and plan for their retirements.

"It is definitely extremely complex, and very hard for folks preparing for retirement or in retirement, to understand what it means for their benefits," Sprick said.

Social Security statements that provide retirement benefit estimates do not take these rules into account.

Consequently, many workers find out their benefits are adjusted when they are about to retire.

"The young guys don't pay attention to it because it's too far out; they're not worried about it," Kelly said of the firefighters.

"It's not until you're ready to go out the door that you actually start paying attention to what you're going to have to live off when you actually retire," he added.

The reductions to their Social Security benefits can be a shock.

For beneficiaries like the Bernsteins who start out with lower benefits, it can be difficult to catch up, even after a record 8.7% Social Security cost-of-living adjustment went into effect this year.

"Gas this summer and in the spring at $4 a gallon ate that money up like it wasn't even there," Dave Bernstein said.>

<They roam Florida parking lots and carwashes in search of cars with damaged windshields, often bearing gifts; gift cards, steak dinners and discounted hot tubs are the common ones.

Insurance companies call them “harvesters,” and their sales pitch to car owners is simple: Auto glass shops can offer free windshield replacements because it’s covered by comprehensive insurance. All they need is a signature.

But after the signature is collected and the repair is made, the glass shops send exorbitant bills to insurers, who often deny or pay out a lesser amount for the claim. Lawyers then sue the insurance company for payment and the cost of legal fees, often settling hundreds of lawsuits at a time for a hefty sum.

It’s all part of a network of out-of-state companies and lawyers that have carved out an entire industry based on these glass replacements — so costly to insurance companies that it has caused rates to skyrocket across the state, consumer advocates say.

The tactic is common only in Florida, where more than 46,000 auto glass lawsuits have been filed so far in 2023, according to data from the state’s Department of Financial Services.

Laws meant to protect consumers have fueled the trend, which has exploded over the past several years — only 591 such Florida lawsuits were filed in 2011. Advocate groups point to the burgeoning industry of “unscrupulous” auto glass shops and lawyers as a leading factor behind the state’s high insurance costs.

The lawsuits have been inflaming an already bleak auto insurance market in Florida — a state whose average auto insurance premium of $2,560 is the highest in the country. The issue of auto glass litigation has become so dire that legislators have passed two laws in the past year to try to slow it down.

While car insurance rates are rising faster than inflation nationally, Florida’s increases have been the most drastic — the average premium today is 88 percent more expensive than a decade ago, according to figures from industry data firm Insure. Insurers have blamed the costly premiums on hurricanes and a high percentage of uninsured drivers, but the companies seldom mention that they also are passing on the cost of auto glass litigation.

When Florida resident Francinete Borgstrom was approached last December in an Orlando parking lot by an auto glass salesman, the offer “didn’t sound any alarms,” she said. The salesman told her that Auto Glass America could replace her broken windshield without a deductible, so she signed the waiver with no questions asked.

Borgstrom said she didn’t realize that when she signed away her assignment of benefits — that is, authorized the glass repair company to assume her rights under her insurance policy to seek payment for the work — she also gave the shop the right to sue the insurer in her name if necessary. Auto Glass America did just that when the insurance company, AssuranceAmerica, refused to pay the bill of $1,461. That price is more than four times the average cost for that type of repair, based on figures cited in a lawsuit filed against the same repair shop by another insurance company, Allstate.

These glass shops primarily target older people, immigrants and nonnative English speakers, consumer advocates said and court records suggest. Borgstrom, who immigrated to the United States from Brazil, did not know a lawsuit had been filed in her name until she was contacted for this article.

A representative from Auto Glass America declined to comment on its business model but said the company no longer offers gifts in exchange for servicing. The other glass repair shops mentioned in this article did not respond to requests for comment.

“Not only will it most likely lead to a higher rate at their next renewal date, but it has the potential to generate a nonrenewal at the end of their current policy period,” said Mark Friedlander, director of communications for the Insurance Information Institute. “The average $30 repair could be a six-figure impact on an auto insurance company.”

Gift cards and steak dinners

The auto glass shops contract harvesters to find customers, sometimes even going door-to-door, lawsuits by insurance companies allege. Along with a free glass replacement, the harvesters at times offer gifts to entice their targets, some as valuable as $200.

Once a glass company persuades a driver to agree to the replacement and sign away their assignment of benefits, the shop adds “unreasonable fees and tack-ons” to the insurance claim, said Michael Carlson, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of Florida, an industry trade group.

When the insurance companies pay out a lesser amount for the replacement or reject the claim entirely, the glass shops sue for the remainder of the bounty. Then come the lawyers.”....>

<.....Until the recent changes passed by state lawmakers, Florida had what are called “one-way attorney’s fees” — a requirement that the insurer has to cover the plaintiff’s reasonable legal fees if it loses or settles a claim. These litigation fees are “where the real gravy is,” said Capital City Consulting partner Ashley Kalifeh, who worked with Florida regulators to close loopholes in the state’s insurance laws.

These fees are concentrated in a small group: Just 20 lawyers file 96 percent of the glass lawsuits in Florida, according to data commissioned by the Florida Justice Reform Institute.

Attorneys who file the lawsuits argue they’re helping individuals battle a large, entrenched system.

“The idea was to balance out the scales of power between a multibillion-dollar insurance carrier and Mom and Joe,” said William England, an attorney for Chad Barr Law who specializes in auto glass litigation. “If it comes down to being abused, there’s always a few bad apples in any society.”

The initial lawsuit filings are typically just a few pages long and based on a template that can be filled in with the name of the insured driver and the date of repair, a streamlined process that helps auto glass lawyers quickly file thousands of cases with relative ease.

Lawyers will offer to settle bunches of lawsuits for a single sum, Carlson said. That’s cheaper for insurers than litigating each case individually, even if some are winnable, because the insurance companies can pass the costs of settlement to policyholders, according to Friedlander.

But insurance companies would rather not have to deal with the mass lawsuits at all. In a lawsuit filed by Allstate against Auto Glass America in 2019, the insurance giant called the practice a “greedy scheme to extract as much money as possible.” The combined cost of Auto Glass America’s claims and litigation against Allstate in 2017 and 2018 exceeded $600,000, according to the lawsuit. “The effect of AGA’s unlawful and inequitable conduct is substantial,” it added.

Jannet Mehmed, 76, had the glass replaced on her 2017 Toyota Camry by Orange Blossom Auto Glass after finding the company through an online search in August 2022. Mehmed’s State Farm agent later called her with bad news — she had been charged $1,812, well over market rate.

“Senior citizens are very trusting,” Mehmed said. “You give them the impression that you’re going to help them, and they’ll open their checkbooks.”

Some lawsuits by insurance companies allege that harvesters forged signatures of drivers who turned down their offers. Others allege that glass shops never made the repairs after collecting the signatures, but still filed claims.

Fixing the cracks

For years, the practice of filing auto glass lawsuits has existed within the legal boundaries thanks to one-way attorney’s fees and loose insurance regulations. When the lawsuits spiked in 2019, a coalition of insurance groups called for changes in the state’s laws through an initiative called Fix the Cracks....>

<.....The initiative, led by the Personal Insurance Federation of Florida and funded through trade associations by Allstate, Farmers Insurance, Progressive and State Farm, helped pass two laws intended to shut down Florida’s freewheeling auto glass industry and put an end to “windshield bullies,” according to its website.

The first measure, passed in December 2022, barred one-way attorney’s fees for insurance-related claims. The second, passed in May, prohibited the transfer of assignment of benefits for auto glass repairs, making it harder for glass-replacement companies to fix windshields without first contacting the insurance companies. The May law also makes it illegal for glass companies to offer free perks in exchange for services.

But auto glass lawsuits continue to roll in, court records show. The assignment-of-benefits law applies only to insurance policies renewed or reissued after May 26, 2023, Kalifeh said, leaving a six- to 12-month period for lawyers to file as many lawsuits as possible before all existing policies have been renewed — 46,059 lawsuits were filed from January to August, according to data commissioned by the Florida Justice Reform Institute.

Some of the plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that insurance companies still stand to profit from the changes in Florida’s laws. Imran Malik, a lawyer who filed over 7,000 glass lawsuits in 2022, said insurers have used the cost of litigation as a “convenient scapegoat” for raising rates but have yet to lower them since the new laws were passed.

“Even with all the changes that have occurred in the law, not one insurance company has reduced their rates at all,” Malik said.

The insurance companies, Malik added, have long had “cushy relationships” with larger glass shops such as Safelite, which smaller glass shops take business away from. Safelite did not directly answer emailed questions about its relationship with insurance companies.

“There’s not a lot of clean hands in this industry,” said Florida attorney Zachary Hicks, who has worked on auto glass litigation cases since 2019. “The problem is that plaintiff’s lawyers will abuse the system if you let them. Insurance companies will abuse the system if you let them. … Insurance companies got exactly what they wanted — they eliminated it all — and rates are still up.”

Hicks added that he himself was recently dropped by Geico for not carrying minimum liability car insurance, even though he pays for a Geico umbrella policy.

The total costs of claims made by glass shops and their litigation costs are unknown, but Kalifeh estimates them to be “easily in the tens of millions of dollars a year.”

England and Hicks believe, however, that the new laws will effectively end auto glass litigation as an industry once the grace period for filing lawsuits is over. When it does, it is unclear by how much insurers will reduce premiums. State Farm, Allstate and Progressive declined to comment on how the lawsuits affect individual rates.>

<Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday urged House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) to move forward quickly with an impeachment of President Joe Biden before he is re-elected.

"Tell us what your expectations are in terms of this investigation, and will it lead to an impeachment of Joe Biden?" Bartiromo asked Jordan during a Sunday interview.

"I believe we will get the depositions and the interviews done in this calendar year and then make a decision early next year whether there are actual evidence warrants going to articles of impeachment and moving to that stage of the investigation," Jordan replied.

Bartiromo suggested Biden should be impeached before he can participate in the 2024 presidential election.

"Well, the timing is important," she said. "We've got an election next year. President Trump is facing four indictments, and you've got this dereliction of duty."

Jordan responded by quoting Donald Trump.

"He said they come after him because he's fighting for us," he explained. "That is true. That's what the swamp does. They're going after President Trump because he kept his word, and he's fighting for us.">

Ever at the gallop to play arse-licker, she is.

They wanna go after yer boy, <fredthejackal>; got yer knives sharpened yet?

<If Canada’s provinces weren’t squabbling with the federal government, it wouldn’t be Canada. But lately, these tensions seem to be cropping up more forcefully at every turn, and they couldn’t come at a worse time.

The Alberta factor

In recent weeks, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has launched an effort to take half the money in the Canada Pension Plan and set up a separate, Alberta-only pension scheme. The feds, unsurprisingly, say “no way” and have warned of significant economic pain if the province splits from the national plan.

At the same time, energy-rich Alberta is threatening to use a legal loophole to ignore proposed nationwide clean electricity regulations that are part of Canada’s pledge to have a carbon-neutral grid by 2035. Albertan grievances with the federal government are nothing new, of course. Albertans, whose natural resource wealth contributes significantly to Canada’s GDP, have always felt a little taken for granted. And now, with climate policy hitting at the heart of their economy and culture, they are in a particularly plucky mood to fight back.

But it’s not just the Albertans. As the struggle over pensions and electricity regulations plays out in the West, provinces across the country are fighting with Ottawa over carbon pricing.

Since 2019, Canada has had a federally mandated price on carbon for any provinces that don’t have their own local emissions taxes. It is one of the government’s signature climate policies. But now, with inflation high and his political fortunes in question, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is suspending the carbon tax on home heating oil for three years in a bid to give consumers a break.

It just so happens that home heating oil is used primarily in Atlantic Canada, where the Liberals are doing particularly badly in the polls. Now, some other provinces want carve-outs for the fuels that they use too.

In the federal Parliament, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre leveraged the broader provincial outrage over the carbon tax carve-outs to pitch a motion of his own to exempt all home heating from the tax, but the Liberals defeated it with help from the Bloc Quebecois.

Meanwhile, the premier of Saskatchewan, Scott Moe, says SaskEnergy, the provincial-owned natural gas provider, won’t collect the carbon tax on natural gas home heating at all for the federal government. That set up a direct legal challenge to the feds’ tax authority.

Even the deepening housing crisis isn’t immune from conflict between the premiers and the prime minister. In a meeting on Tuesday, provincial heads blasted the federal government’s approach of bypassing provincial governments to cut housing construction deals directly with municipalities. One premier is even considering a law to prevent the feds from making the local bilateral deals at all.

An old challenge looms. As if all of this wasn’t enough of a problem, the mother of all federal-provincial tensions is quietly stirring again. A recent poll found support for Quebec separation rising several points to 38%, a jump from the 32% support it enjoyed in 2020. One cause of the uptick could be misgivings about immigration – some Quebec nationalists say the feds are preventing the province from attracting enough French speakers to preserve the dominance of the French language there. Meanwhile, a Quebec plan to increase university tuition costs for out-of-province students, also aimed at shoring up Francophone dominance, has sparked fresh protests.

All of this couldn’t come at a worse time. The federal government is trying to tackle overarching challenges like climate change, healthcare, and housing that require comprehensive approaches. But with the Liberal government trailing in the polls by double digits, provinces may smell blood in the water and believe now is the time to strike for concessions.

Unfortunately, the people who suffer most are ordinary Canadians. Struggling with high costs for housing and health care, and worried about climate change, they’re less interested in jurisdictional squabbles than they are in practical solutions to real problems.>

<Marjorie Taylor Greene has launched another attack on her fellow Republicans as she finds herself increasingly isolated from the GOP on Capitol Hill.

Posting on X, formerly Twitter, Green blasted the supposedly opposing views of Republicans in office with that of the regular American voter.

She wrote: "Republicans across America are sick and tired of Republicans in Congress who never hold this administration accountable for destroying our borders and putting Americans in danger. I don't go to D.C. to be friends with the spineless Republicans who never fight for our values."

Her comments are the latest in an ongoing spat between Greene and other red members of Congress, which is hardly helping heal the rift caused by the 3-week House speakership quagmire from which the party is still recovering.

She parted with the Freedom Caucus at the end of Kevin McCarthy's short-lived tenure as House speaker, and earlier this year was embroiled in a row with fellow far-right congresswoman Lauren Boebert.

Greene has recently come under fire from other Republicans and GOP activists who find themselves on the same side of the political coin, with Florida Rep. Byron Donalds criticizing her for publicly airing controversial views.

"Is she concerned about that? I don't think so," he wrote. "The airing of grievances by Twitter, or by X, is just not productive. When you do it through social media, it just doesn't work."

This weekend, Greene has found herself the subject of an attack by right-wing activist and self-described journalist ally Laura Loomer, who branded her a liar when the representative posted about her record in Congress, saying Greene's "star is falling. People are finally realizing what a conwoman she is. And I am so here for it."

Earlier this month, Greene was engaged in another row with Texas Rep. Chip Roy. The dispute within the party revolves around Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat whom Greene sought to censure for her involvement in a Capitol protest supporting a Gaza ceasefire last month.

Greene labeled the peaceful demonstration as an "insurrection" both at the time and in her proposed censure. Surprisingly, 23 Republicans, alongside Democrats, voted to table the resolution. Unhappy with the outcome, Greene took to X to slam her "feckless" colleagues who did not back the resolution.

In response, Roy criticized the resolution itself as feckless. He pointed out that it was "deeply flawed" and contained legally and factually unverified claims, including the assertion of leading an "insurrection." Greene attacked Roy for voting to remove her from the Freedom Caucus and called Tlaib a "terrorist".

Roy reportedly responded with: "Tell her to go chase so-called Jewish space lasers if she wants to spend time on that sort of thing." This remark referred to her previous statement where she expressed a belief that wildfires in California were intentionally started by a laser shot from a satellite owned by the Rothschild family, an antisemitic conspiracy theory trope.

In response, Greene posted: "Oh shut up Colonel Sanders, you're not even from Texas, more like the DMV.">

<Special counsel Jack Smith took a meeting with attorneys representing former President Donald Trump earlier this year and reportedly sat in stone-cold silence while they pleaded with him not to indict their client.

Politico reports that ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl's new book on Trump's post-presidential life claims that Trump lawyers Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro met with Smith's team over the summer and gave them a list of reasons why charging Trump with crimes related to his efforts to illegally remain in power would be a mistake.

According to Karl, Smith sat through the presentation without saying a word.

"As Lauro spoke, the prosecutors took notes, but they said nothing," Karl reports. "Smith waited until Lauro was done speaking and then, without commenting on what he just heard, he bid the Trump lawyers farewell. According to sources with direct knowledge of the meeting, Smith did not ask a single question. And aside from the pleasantries at the start of the meeting (including the offer of a glass of water) and the goodbye at the end, neither Smith nor the two prosecutors said anything at all.”

Just four hours later, Smith and his team would slap Trump with criminal charges related to his efforts to obstruct the United States government from retrieving top-secret government documents from his Mar-a-Lago resort, and charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election would come less than a week later.

‘At the defendant’s direction’: Jack Smith previews plan for prosecuting Trump Trump has repeatedly railed against Smith on his Truth Social website, frequently referring to the special prosecutor as "deranged.">

<Judge Aileen Cannon surprised some observers by rejecting former President Trump’s requests to delay his classified documents trial until after the 2024 election. Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, has ruled repeatedly in Trump’s favor in this matter, and was even repudiated last year by fellow Trump-appointed judges on the conservative 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for her decisions in the case.

Jack Smith, however, should hold off on the high-fives. Upon closer look, Judge Cannon’s ruling is no victory for federal prosecutors. Although she kept the May 2024 trial date intact, Judge Cannon said she will revisit the case schedule – including the trial date – in early March. This was the judicial equivalent of kicking the can down the road. In that same order, Judge Cannon hints at where she’s going on this issue: “The quantity of discovery in this case remains exceedingly voluminous, even more so than initially thought….These evolving and unforeseen circumstances require a reevaluation” of the schedule. In other words, Trump’s lawyers will get the benefit of the doubt when requesting extra time to review the documents in this case. After her public rebuke from the 11th Circuit last year, Judge Cannon may be less willing to immediately grant Trump everything he wants, but her scheduling rulings could amount to death by a thousand paper cuts, or continuances, for prosecutors.

In addition, Judge Cannon added to the scheduling pressure by extending some of the deadlines for filing and responding to pre-trial motions, which will add fuel to Trump’s future demands to delay his trial.

This is the strongest criminal case against Trump, so he is extra motivated to press the pause button. Trump has no viable defense, as attempts to claim that he declassified the documents were roundly debunked by the Bedminister audio recording, and his repeated assertions that the Presidential Records Act authorized his taking of the documents is so wrong that Jack Smith called the argument “borderline frivolous” in a court filing.

Trump surely understands that his best chance to avoid incarceration is to become President before the trial. Fortunately, for him, Judge Aileen Cannon is no Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has put Trump’s election interference case in Washington, DC on the rocket docket.

When the New York Attorney General’s Office called Donald Trump Jr. to the stand in the civil fraud trial, he claimed ignorance of how the Trump Organization inflated asset values with lenders and insurers to secure favorable financing. Now the defense is calling Trump Jr. as its first witness to fill in the gaps of his earlier testimony. Trump Jr. will surely point the finger at his company’s external accountants who prepared the financial statements at issue in the case. But Trump Jr’s value as a witness was greatly diminished after he claimed not to have ever reviewed the statement of financial conditions, or have any relevant knowledge about this matter.

Trump Jr’s testimony won’t matter much anyway, as Judge Engoron already granted summary judgment against the defendants for fraud, and the rest of this trial will help establish damages and preserve a record for the inevitable appeal. In fact, Judge Engoron recently doubled down on his earlier summary judgment ruling by reiterating that the former President made at least ten internally contradictory claims in his statements of financial condition. The Trump family and the Trump Organization have already lost this case. The only real question left is how much will it hurt them in the wallet?>

<Special counsel Jack Smith has called out Donald Trump's legal team for allegedly misleading his office regarding the former president's position on televising the proceedings of his Washington, D.C. election subversion trial.

Trump's defense attorneys on Friday submitted a filing to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the trial that is scheduled to begin in March, arguing that the use of television should be employed to illustrate the trial's unfairness.

“The prosecution wishes to continue this travesty in darkness. President Trump calls for sunlight,” wrote Trump lawyers John Lauro and Todd Blanche. “Every person in America, and beyond, should have the opportunity to study this case firsthand and watch as, if there is a trial, President Trump exonerates himself of these baseless and politically motivated charges.”

“There is a high risk that proceeding behind closed doors under these circumstances would serve to further undermine confidence in the United States justice system, while continuing to prejudice President Trump’s rights,” they added.

Lauro over the summer said in a Fox News interview that the "first thing we would ask for is: Let’s have cameras in the courtroom so all Americans can see what’s happening in our criminal justice system. I would hope the Department of Justice would join in that effort so that we take the curtain away and all Americans get to see what’s happening.”

As Politico noted, the Friday filing did not mention a decades-long federal court rule that bans the broadcasting of criminal court proceedings. Smith's team of prosecutors did cite the rule, however, in urging Chutkan to reject media outlets' efforts to televise the trial, which they asserted has already garnered significant interest.

Politico also reported that Trump may be hoping to use his Washington trial — the first of four criminal prosecutions to be scheduled — to reiterate claims of election fraud, as well as "confirming what many have long viewed as a symbiotic relationship between Trump and the mainstream news media, whose ratings and readership is indisputably boosted by coverage of the polarizing former president." The MAGA legal team claimed that Trump’s attorneys said he prefers TV coverage of the Washington trial in part because it will allow the public to “hear all the evidence regarding an election that President Trump believes was rigged and stolen.”

In a November 3 filing submission, Smith's team observed that "Counsel for former President Trump has requested that government counsel convey that he takes no position" in the choice to broadcast the proceedings; however, Trump's Friday filing seemed to be a clear endorsement of news organizations' bid.

On Sunday, however, Politico legal affairs reporter Josh Gerstein shared the latest filing from the special counsel, which claimed that Trump's legal team had deceived the prosecution about Trump's position on the television broadcast proposal.

"On November 3, 2023, the United States filed an opposition to applications of a coalition of media organizations seeking to record and broadcast the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump," Smith's team wrote. "In advance of that filing, the Government sought the defendant’s position on the applications, and his counsel requested that the Government represent to the Court that he took no position. The Government accurately reported that to the Court. On November 10, however, the defendant reversed course and filed a response in support of the applications. The defendant’s response did not engage with the relevant Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure or cite any applicable caselaw, and instead made false and incendiary claims about the administration of his criminal case, United States v. Trump. The Government requests an opportunity to respond to the defendant’s claims and is prepared to file its proposed reply, which is four pages, immediately upon receiving leave from the Court."....>

<...."Sooo…Trump tried to hoodwink Special Counsel, but instead gets busted by the DOJ for the lies and gamesmanship," tweeted MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang. "Good lawyers that have good cases don’t play stupid games like Trump’s counsel is doing here."

"Trump tried to get away [with] a fast one, and Smith is calling him on it," wrote former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman. "It's all a charade on Trump's part anyway," he continued in a separate tweet. "DOJ accurately advised Chutkan she doesn't have the power to order the trial to be televised — the Judicial Conference would have to change its policy. So it's just a phony stance by Trump to suggest he wants transparency & US doesn't."

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, in an interview with MSNBC's Jen Psaki, argued in favor of televising the trial.

"Whether there's cameras in the courtroom or not, it's going to be a circus every day of every week," Kaytal said. "The judge will of course exert some reign over that, but I don't think that's a reason not to let the American public see exactly what's happening."

In regard to speculation that Trump's filing, devoid of any legal citations, showing that he "doesn't really mean it," Kaytal argued, "that's part and parcel of Donald Trump's legal filings generally."

"They're very light on law, if any at all," he said. "And I think Trump genuinely wants this."

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance seemed highly skeptical of Trump's seeming desire for cameras in the courtroom, arguing in her "Civil Discourse" newsletter that the ex-president is likely using it "as a strategic measure to paint himself as martyr and the government as a Soviet-style prosecution."

"Trump says he now favors cameras," Vance wrote. "He condemns the Biden administration’s political prosecution of its 'leading electoral opponent,' labeling it a 'show trial.' His lawyers write: 'this case has all the unfortunate badges of a trial in an authoritarian regime, lacking legitimacy or due process.'"

Vance warned readers not to be "fooled" by Trump's filing.

"Trump does not really want cameras in the courtroom. They would expose the truth and expose him for what he truly is. He understands what happens when his testimony and the testimony of others about him is made public—he has undoubtedly read the recent New York Times/Siena poll that shows him losing in key swing states if he’s convicted in a criminal case. He saw how people had their eyes opened when the House January 6 committee proceedings were televised. Trump likes his solo appearances outside of the courtroom, but he fears the reality of the actual proceedings and the truth," she wrote.

“Federal courts have traditionally disallowed cameras out of concern for a defendant’s due process rights," she added. "Here, Trump has effectively mooted that argument. He has waived the argument on appeal. There is no reason, other than the existence of an outmoded rule, to prevent the public from observing this most important of trials.”>

<An Arizona Republican is refusing to require clergy to report confessions of child abuse despite a horrific case involving the Mormon Church.

A Bisbee father of six admitted to his bishop during a counseling session that he was raping his then-5-year-old daughter, but court records show that Bishop John Herrod, and then his replacement Bishop Robert “Kim” Mauzy, were advised by attorney Merrill Nelson not to alert anyone outside the church — and the man then started raping his 6-week-old daughter, reported the Arizona Republic.

Arizona law requires teachers and doctors to report suspected abuse, there is no requirement for churches to do the same. In fact, many argue that confidentiality is essential.

“The seal of confession is a sacred, sacred part of the Catholic church,” said state Rep. Quang Nguyen, who is Catholic.

A Cochise County judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by three of the children of the man, stating that the church is not responsible for the ongoing abuse. The man was finally arrested in 2017 and later killed himself while awaiting trial in jail.

State Rep. Stacey Travers (D-Phoenix) introduced a bill earlier this year requiring clergy members to report abuse discovered during confessions or confidential communications “if there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that the abuse is ongoing, will continue or may be a threat to other minors."

But Nguyen refuses to allow it to receive a hearing because he said it is "an attack on the church."

“The victim has the parents, the victim has the teachers, the victim has friends, the victim has relatives that he or she is close to,’’ said Nguyen, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. “So, it doesn’t need a priest to be able to go to court and testify.’’

The girl who ensured seven years of abuse said she was failed by all of those support systems.

“They just let it keep happening,” the girl told the Associated Press last year. “They just said, ‘Hey, let’s excommunicate her father.’ It didn’t stop. ‘Let’s have them do therapy.’ It didn’t stop. ‘Hey, let’s forgive and forget and all this will go away.’ It didn’t go away.”

“The seal of confession is never to be broken, and priests will go to jail for it," Nguyen said.>