How many times is Jack Smith going to the well to try to spread more rumors. Jan6 has been proven to be Pelosi’s baby who is still in diapers and the Pentagon/Milley who did not follow through with an order from the President to furnish the National Guard to protect the area.
Pelosi/Milley should be charged with dereliction of duty.
Jack Smith and an Obama’s judge keep regurgitating the same old news hoping it will stick.
Smith/Judge don’t want to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling that the President’s position is covered by immunity.
The President did what he could do; but, Pelosi interfered/made the mess and needs to clean it up. She hates Trump and is working with the One World Order. It is so obvious.
They won’t admit there was mucho corruption leading up to this.
****
A Fox News star destroyed Jack Smith’s witch hunt with three brutal words
October 4, 2024
3 minute read
Fox Corporation, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Jack Smith found a way to insert himself back into the election.
But his latest move won’t work out like he planned.
And a Fox News star just destroyed Jack Smith’s witch hunt with these three brutal words.
Jack Smith tries to hand the media a weapon
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s trial against former President Donald Trump over January 6 won’t happen until after the election if it ever does at all.
His case was held up most of the year while the Supreme Court considered Trump’s claim of Presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court ruled that Presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office.
It was left up to lower court Judges to decide which actions by a President are considered official.
That left him with one last card to play to impact the election.
Smith filed a 165-page brief with all of his alleged evidence against Trump with District Court Judge Tonya Chutkan – who was appointed by former President Barack Obama – to determine what’s inadmissible because of Presidential immunity.
Chutkan unsealed the evidence for the public as a last-gasp attempt to deal political damage to Trump before the election.
(Which is election interference.)
Fox News star rips Jack Smith’s latest ploy
Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett called Smith’s brief “bad detective fiction” during an appearance on Fox & Friends.
“Yeah, he’s trying to have a damning trial of Trump without a trial, in the face of the fact that he couldn’t get a trial before the election,” Jarrett said. “And, you know, releasing this motion, this court filing, it sure looks like blatant election interference.”
Chutkan is a hack who worked with Smith to try and put Trump on trial as fast as possible this year.
“Lawrence, you know, Trump’s lawyers urged the Judge, keep it sealed. It will impact the election,” Jarrett explained. “The Judge did it anyway with almost no discussion and there’s no good reason to make it public. It’s premature. There isn’t even a trial date.”
Chutkan and Smith worked together to give Democrats and their allies in the media a club to bash Trump with by unsealing the evidence.
“So, I think this was done knowing full well media and Democrats would seize on provocative details, publicize it to affect voters and damage Trump and sure enough, as I looked at television, the internet and newspapers, that’s what’s happening,” Jarrett stated.
Jarrett said that Smith crammed as much in the brief as possible to try to make Trump look bad even if the evidence is disqualified later.
“At times it reads like bad detective fiction. A lot of it is irrelevant and inadmissible,” Jarrett remarked. “Conversations that other people had that are not connected to Trump directly. So, it seems like deliberate election interference and the incendiary details notwithstanding, Smith’s basic accusations are the same that we have heard all along. Nothing has changed, the theme that Trump deceived people, well, if he honestly believed he won, it’s hard to prove otherwise.”
The Fox News legal analyst thought that much of Smith’s evidence from the brief would eventually be stripped out by Presidential immunity.
“His great challenge is to somehow circumvent the immunity decision here,” Jarret said. “That’s what this motion is all about. The problem for Smith is a lot of his evidence and testimony comes from public officials and their conversations with Trump, including the vice president. Under the Supreme Court decision, that may well be protected information and thus inadmissible.”
Jack Smith may think he dropped bombshell evidence but it remains to be seen if voters are that interested in more January 6 hysteria.
The problem is with the MSNBC/ABC/CBS/CNN streaming disinformation that there is no problem in Springfield/Ohio OVER AND OVER when it has been called out.
You can’t blame the city or the illegals. It the government who has contributed to this BIG PROBLEM when they do not have assimilation plans as they continue to stream in millions of people from the border with no assimilation methods.
Follow America’s fastest-growing news aggregator, Spreely News, and stay informed. You can find all of our articles plus information from your favorite Conservative voices.
The growing migrant crisis in Springfield, Ohio, has led to escalating tensions between residents and Haitian nationals, a situation that Tremont City Police Chief Chad Duncan believes could have been avoided with better government planning.
In a candid interview with Blaze News’ Julio Rosas, Duncan expressed frustration with how the local and federal governments have handled the sudden influx of Haitian migrants into the community. He described the situation as chaotic, harmful for both residents and migrants, and a result of poor government management.
Duncan’s criticism stems from what he sees as a lack of effort to integrate the migrants into the local culture. Many residents share his concerns, feeling that the government’s failure to facilitate proper assimilation has left Springfield and surrounding areas overwhelmed. “It’s not good for either side, and that’s a shame,” Duncan said, echoing the sentiments of many locals who feel their concerns have been dismissed or misunderstood.
One of the most significant challenges Springfield now faces is the increase in traffic accidents, many caused by unlicensed drivers, including newly arrived Haitian migrants.
“People are losing their lives,” Duncan said, noting that local insurance rates have spiked as a result. He explained that his department has tried to address the issue by towing vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers, a measure intended to deter repeat offenses. “I found hitting people’s pocketbooks gets their attention,” Duncan remarked, adding that a tow typically costs around $400, which, combined with fines, can make a significant impact.
In Springfield, however, Duncan believes the local police department has not taken similarly strict measures, allowing unlicensed migrants to continue driving even after accidents. According to Duncan, this leniency could be linked to the federal government’s Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program.
Under TPS, migrants who commit two misdemeanors risk deportation, which may explain why Springfield authorities appear reluctant to enforce certain laws. Duncan cited an example where a driver he stopped had already committed three misdemeanors for operating without a license, yet there seemed to be little consequence.
Beyond the roads, Duncan highlighted other problems that have resulted from the mass arrival of Haitian migrants. Springfield, like many U.S. cities dealing with a sudden influx of immigrants, is grappling with how to manage the needs of these new residents. Duncan believes the situation has created a divide in the community, not just between long-time residents and migrants but also between citizens and their government.
One particularly troubling aspect for Duncan is the lack of communication between law enforcement agencies. He mentioned that Springfield’s police department had recently encrypted its radio communications, making it difficult for surrounding municipalities, like Tremont City, to coordinate on public safety matters. This issue becomes particularly concerning during high-speed chases or emergencies that could spill over into neighboring towns. Duncan recounted an incident where a car fleeing through Springfield at over 100 miles per hour entered his jurisdiction, a dangerous situation made worse by the lack of communication between departments.
The broader issue, according to Duncan, is the government’s failure to properly integrate migrants before placing them in communities like Springfield. He argued that the Haitian migrants should have been brought to a centralized location where they could learn English, acquire driver’s licenses, and gain basic life skills before being distributed across the country. “There was an alternative way that would have been beneficial to everybody involved,” Duncan said. Instead, the mishandled situation has left both residents and migrants in a state of confusion and frustration.
Duncan was quick to clarify that his criticisms are not directed at the migrants themselves but at the government’s failure to provide proper support. “Anybody that has a heart, that has any empathy, has any intelligence, when your home country is the way Haiti is right now, you want to get out. You want to find safety, and you want to take care of your family and yourself,” Duncan remarked, expressing sympathy for the difficult circumstances the migrants face.
He shared a story of pulling over a young Haitian woman for a traffic violation. When he explained that his frustrations were with the government and not with the migrants, the woman began to cry. She told Duncan she had believed the community hated her and her fellow Haitians. Duncan reassured her, saying, “We’re not against you Haitians. We just don’t like the way our government puts you here. It doesn’t help you. It doesn’t help us.”
For Duncan, this interaction was a powerful moment of understanding. “We kind of built a little bridge there, and that’s what it’s all about,” he said, reflecting on the importance of empathy and communication in resolving the tensions between migrants and locals.
The police chief’s frustrations also extend to the media’s role in the crisis. Bill Monaghan, a former journalist, told Blaze News that many residents have self-censored out of fear of being labeled racist or intolerant for expressing concerns about the influx of migrants. Monaghan noted that when locals raise legitimate issues like housing shortages or increased traffic accidents, they are often met with accusations of racial bias.
Duncan’s message to the government is clear: the situation could have been handled much more effectively with a bit more planning and care. Instead, both sides—locals and migrants—are left to navigate the resulting turmoil. “The end result is, we’re just going to constantly have turmoil because they haven’t adjusted to our culture,” Duncan concluded. “It’s not good for either side, and that’s a shame.”
Joining us now is Arizona’s Democratic Senator Mark Kelly.
CBS News
Sen. Mark Kelly says Americans need to know about “huge amount of misinformation” on election
Washington — Sen. Mark Kelly said Sunday that the federal government needs to do its part to inform Americans of the vast swath of election misinformation that’s being consumed on social media platforms like X, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram.
“It’s up to us, the people who serve in Congress and in the White House to get the information out there, that there is a tremendous amount of misinformation in this election, and it’s not going to stop on Nov. 5,” Kelly said on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”
Kelly, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he’s seen these misinformation operations target not only his state of Arizona, but also other battleground states.
“There is a very reasonable chance I would put it in the 20 to 30% range, that the content you are seeing, the comments you are seeing, are coming from one of those three countries: Russia, Iran, China,” Kelly said.
Sen. Mark Kelly on
In a committee hearing last month on foreign threats to the 2024 election, Kelly presented screenshots of Russian-made web pages showing fabricated headlines designed to look like Fox News and The Washington Post, targeted at voters in battleground states.
“So my constituents in Arizona and others — they seek to influence the outcome of these elections, and that is absolutely beyond the pale,” Kelly said at the Sept. 18 hearing. “We’ve got to do something about it.”
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump each have the support of 49% of Arizona voters, according to CBS News’ battleground tracker as of Sept. 30.
In another battleground state, Pennsylvania, Trump returned Saturday to hold a rally in Butler three months after an attempted assassination on him. He was joined by members of his own party and billionaire Elon Musk, who said Trump was the only way to preserve democracy and warned of a last election if he does not win in November.
Speaking to CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Kelly called the social media mogul a hypocrite.
“He’s standing next to the guy that tried to overturn the 2020 election on Jan. 6, saying that this is somehow going to be the last election and they’re going to take away your vote,” Kelly said. “And you know, it just doesn’t pass the logic test.”
(Pelosi’s video proves and she stated she was responsible for Jan6. Milley also received a call from President Trump for the National Guard and Milley disobeyed the order.)
At the White House press briefing on Friday, President Biden – speaking from the podium for the first time since taking office – said he’s confident of a free and fair election but alluded to the 2021 insurrection at the Capitol in his concerns on whether it will be a peaceful transfer of power.
“The things that Trump has said and the things that he said last time out when he didn’t like the outcome of the election were very dangerous,” Mr. Biden said. “If you notice, I noticed that the vice-presidential Republican candidate did not say he’d accept the outcome of the election, and they haven’t even accepted the outcome of the last election.”
(Why should they when the cheating is being reported as below?)
Voters enter a polling place in Guadalupe, Arizona, to drop off their ballots during the July 30, 2024 primary election. New information reveals why some Arizona voters have for decades been able to vote a full ballot without providing documented proof of citizenship. (Courtney Pedroza for Votebeat)
Arizona election officials who suddenly discovered that they hadn’t obtained proof of citizenship from nearly 100,000 registered voters were relieved last month when the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that they wouldn’t be required to ask for it before the November election.
But new details that have come out since then are raising questions about the state’s handling of the error. The Secretary of State’s Office issued a revised estimate that said more than twice as many voters — 218,000 — were affected, indicating that officials didn’t have a clear picture from the Motor Vehicle Division about just how many voters were affected by a database error, or why, when they provided recommendations to the court on how to solve the issue.
State law in Arizona requires voters to provide proof of citizenship to vote in state and local elections, but the court had said it was too close to the election to ask these voters for the documents, especially since the problem with collecting the documents wasn’t their fault. These voters — who most probably had the proof but just hadn’t provided it to the state — would be allowed to vote a full ballot in November, the court ruled, rather than being placed on a separate list of voters who can vote only in federal elections.
The problem was at first characterized as a glitch that provided incorrect license issuance dates for the voters to election officials, which signaled to them that the MVD had proof of citizenship on file when it did not. New information obtained by Votebeat this week showed that the MVD has historically categorized anyone with a pre-1996 license as a U.S. citizen, even though the agency has not obtained their proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport. It’s unclear how or whether this would have affected the citizenship checks, which mainly relied on the issuance date.
This has been the case since 2004, when the system was initially programmed, according to a spokesperson with the Arizona Department of Transportation
Republicans target Secretary of State Fontes
As the Nov. 5 election approaches quickly — with mail ballots set to go out next week — the evolving explanations are unnerving some people who initially supported the court’s decision, including the Arizona Republican Party, which is now directing its criticism at Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
“Now we find out that he hasn’t been as forthcoming with Arizonans as we would have hoped,” Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda said. “We find that troubling, and will be taking additional action in the coming days.”
Separately, the Donald Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation sued the state Thursday on behalf of conservative Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona, asking the court to force the secretary to release the names of the voters whose citizenship proof is in question.
In a response to an earlier public records request from the group, the Secretary of State’s Office wrote Sept. 24 that the data on affected voters was not yet final, and that releasing it too soon “would create confusion, chaos, uncertainty and consternation among the public — all of which is avoidable, and indeed must be avoided amid an ongoing election during which we expect to receive record turnout.”
The slow unraveling of the mysterious glitch has fueled misinformation about who the voters are and why the situation is happening. Republican elected officials and leaders across the country are claiming that the problem is evidence of cheating and that all the people on the list are noncitizens. That’s not the case: All of the voters attested to their U.S. citizenship under penalty of perjury when they registered to vote, as required by federal law. Only two on the list have so far been identified as noncitizens.
How, and how many, voters were miscategorized
Overall, at least 696,713 residents in Arizona received their license prior to 1996 and have been categorized in state records as U.S. citizens, without providing proof of citizenship. At least 218,000 of them are voters, according to data provided by the Secretary of State’s Office.
The office found out from MVD shortly after the court’s ruling that the number of voters involved was far more than initially reported. At the time, the office couldn’t explain exactly why the number had grown, or whether it was a final number.
Of the 218,000, the office said, 79,000 are Republicans, 61,000 are Democrats, and 76,000 are not registered with either party.
The Secretary of State’s Office has begun researching the citizenship of those affected using federal and state databases, and asking for expedited access, to narrow down the list.
Vote smart(er) with Votebeat Arizona’s newsletter.
Get the latest news on voting and elections in the Grand Canyon State delivered to your inbox for free every other week.Email (required)Sign Me Up
The problem has been occurring since 2004, when Arizona enacted a unique law requiring documented proof of citizenship to vote. Under federal law, all U.S. voters must attest to their citizenship to register, but do not need to prove it. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona must allow residents who do not provide proof to vote in federal elections. That created the separate “federal only” voter roll of people who can vote only in federal elections.
Under the law, Arizona driver’s licenses issued after October 1996 count as proof of citizenship for someone registering to vote. That’s because in October 1996, Arizona began requiring such proof to get a regular driver’s license, and started issuing noncitizens, such as green card holders, a different type of license. Before that, there was no such differentiation.
Because of that change, election officials often use information provided by MVD about driver’s licenses to confirm citizenship. When they query the MVD system for the information, they are able to see both an issuance date and a code indicating that the resident is a U.S. citizen, and they use those two criteria to determine a voter’s eligibility.
Under the MVD’s coding, if someone had received a license prior to 1996, they are coded as a “4,” which indicates U.S. citizen. On election officials’ screens, that code showed up as either “4” or “US Citizen/Non Foreign,” depending on the county. That would incorrectly indicate that someone had provided proof of citizenship.
But the election officials also had access to the voters’ license issuance date, which, if correct, should have alerted officials that they still needed to obtain the voter’s proof of citizenship.
In Maricopa County, officials were using both the date and the citizenship status to make the determination, according to a spokesperson. And in Yavapai County, Registrar of Voters Matt Webber said that the system would flag 1996-licenses, but it was rare.
The problem was that the issuance date was wrong in many cases.
The 98,000 voters first announced as being affected by the problem had a pre-1996 license, but when they registered to vote sometime after 2004, the system was showing the date of the last time they got issued a duplicate license— to replace a lost card, for example — not their original issuance date. Residents getting duplicate licenses don’t provide proof of citizenship at the time. But since the election official would in some cases see a date after 1996, they would assume the person provided proof of citizenship.
The second round of voters affected also had pre-1996 licenses, but when they registered to vote sometime after 2004, the system was showing the date of the last time they renewed or received a reinstatement of their license. The MVD has not historically required proof of citizenship when issuing reinstatements and renewals. But again, if the issuance date was after 1996, it gave the recorders the impression that the person had provided the documentation. That was the case for 120,000 more voters.
The Secretary of State’s Office has indicated the voters will need to provide documented proof of citizenship after the November election.
Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org.
Sure doesn’t look like a candidate for FIRST GENTLEMAN. Gentlemen don’t slap women so hard they spin around like a top. And, they don’t kill babies after they get their nanny pregnant and then pay off the nanny with $80,000 to get rid of the nanny and the baby.
Gentleman – NOT! How does Harris’ women voters feel about her husband and the way he treats women?
Understand Kamala favors abortions rather than being safe when having sex?
Fool me once, shame on you – fool me twice, shame on me..
Carl Cannon offered this take: “Well, we’ve answered one riddle. Why was such a handsome and successful lawyer single when he met Kamala Harris? Now we know why — his girlfriend broke up with him because he slapped her so hard, he spun her around.”
“The reason this matters as much as it does,” Tom Bevan said. “Is that he’s been rolled out by the campaign and the media as this new standard. According to Jen Psaki, he has ‘reshaped the perception of masculinity.'”
“His first marriage broke up after he impregnated the nanny. And now this girlfriend, from a year before he met Kamala Harris, says he committed domestic violence on her. It sounds like the new kind of male is a lot like the old kind of male,” added Carl Cannon.
“Did Kamala know about either of these stories?” Tom Bevan wondered about Kamala Harris. “She may be learning about this for the first time, which would be shocking. And I don’t know if that gives her more of an obligation to respond to it, or not.”
“She eats domestic abusers for breakfast,” Carl Cannon added.
ANDREW WALWORTH: Doug Emhoff, Kamala Harris’s husband, has been accused of slapping a former girlfriend more than a decade ago. According to a report in the Daily Mail, this was back in 2012 at the Cannes Film Festival, a year before he met Harris on that blind date we’ve heard so much about, two years before they were married.
And this is Doug Emhoff in conversation with Jen Psaki on MSNBC, just a few days ago:
ANDREW WALWORTH: This story is picking up a little steam. Newsweek reported on it today. What do you make of it?
CARL CANNON: Well, we’ve answered one riddle. Why was such a handsome and successful lawyer actually single when he met Kamala Harris? Why was he available? And now we know why — his girlfriend broke up with him because he slapped her so hard, he spun her around. She called sobbing from a cab, called her friends to complain about it, and broke up with him.
Look, in all seriousness, you look at these charges against someone like Sean Combs. I mean, in the scheme of things, this may not even be a misdemeanor. It may not even be a crime. It sounds like it happened, but we don’t know.
But this idea that he’s the new kind of man, that he’s the 21st-century, non-toxic male — well, all we know about his personal life is that there was that lovely story they told at the convention in Chicago. He asked Kamala Harris out awkwardly on the phone, left a voicemail, and she plays it for him every year on their anniversary. That was charming.
But, you know, his first marriage broke up after he impregnated the nanny. And now this girlfriend, from a year before he met Kamala Harris, says he committed domestic violence on her. It sounds like the new kind of male is a lot like the old kind of male.
ANDREW WALWORTH: We were all at that Democratic convention, and I watched him give that speech. It was a very effective speech, Tom. I thought it was one of the better moments of the convention.
TOM BEVAN: I can go back and roll the tape. I actually thought, and I said at the time, that he was the best speaker of the night — and that included Michelle Obama. I thought he was the most effective at humanizing her and all these things. And then, of course, we find out after the fact…
He still gave a great speech.
The reason this matters as much as it does — and it should matter — this is a private event that happened however many years ago — is that he’s been rolled out by the campaign and the media as this new standard. According to Jen Psaki, he has “reshaped the perception of masculinity.”
(If you believe Psaki, I have a better one for you:)
Now, the story about the nanny was already out there, it didn’t get a lot of coverage. Even though you say, well, the New York Post ran it on the front page, but ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post — nothing. Total crickets. I’m not going to go on another media rant, but if the shoe were on the other foot, obviously it would be national news. It would be everywhere, all over the place, right?
So, it’s hypocritical. And the other question that’s somewhat interesting is this: they reached out, the New York Post and others, to the Harris campaign. The Harris campaign is not commenting on this.
But I was just talking with my wife about this, and I wonder, did Kamala know about either of these stories before? Maybe she knew about the nanny before she started dating him and married him, but I don’t know that she knew. She may be learning about this for the first time, which would be shocking. And I don’t know if that gives her more of an obligation to talk about it, or speak about it, or respond to it, or not.
CARL CANNON: She eats domestic abusers for breakfast.
CBS News
kommonsentsjane 