Mitch McConnell is scared a Kamala Harris presidency would spell disaster for the Republican party, prognosticating that a Democratic presidency would result in the demise of the filibuster and a liberal packing of the Supreme Court.
“Let’s assume our worst nightmare – the Democrats went to the White House, the House, the Senate,” McConnell said during a speech to lawmakers in Louisville, Kentucky, Spectrum reports. “The first thing they’ll do is get rid of the [Senate] filibuster. Second, you’ll have two new states: D.C., Puerto Rico. That’s four new Democratic senators in perpetuity.”
“If they get those two new states and pack the Supreme Court, they’ll get what they want,” McConnell continued. “By the way, on packing the Supreme Court … you may know this already. It’s unconstitutional.”
McConnell’s remarks come as polling shows a tightening race between Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Harris, especially in battleground states, where Trump’s lead has shrunk from 3.5 percent to 1 percent after Harris announced Minnesota Gov. Tim Walzas her running mate.
During his speech, Spectrum reports that McConnell called the Walz-Harris ticket “the far left of the Democratic Party.
“And by the way, that’s most Democrats today,” McConnell said, according to Spectrum.
We have a binary choice to make in November. We can choose socialism or we can choose Donald Trump.
And yes, it really is that simple.
A wise man once spoke:
Even he recognized how best to proceed.
The Democrat Marxists are trying to take us back to the slave days which is SOCIALISM by trying to elect a person (Kamala Harris) who is not qualified and keeps us spinning in a quagmire the last four years. The Biden/Harris’ Marxists economy/foreign policy is a bust by what is happening in the Middle East with wars. They are playing the ends against the middle by supporting Iran/Hamas.
It is a mystery why Obama is recycling his hate talking points against the qualified person (Trump). What is his agenda since he only has one vote; but, is interfering and trying to take the country into Marxism with Kamala Harris – who is a dedicated Marxists.
Obama’s past history with our country was one of manufacturing/dividing the country and is trying now to tell the people how to vote for a person who has absolutely no qualifications as to how to run a country. Biden stated that “Harris has been instrumental in helping him run the country for the past four years” which has reduced the level of our standing in the world/our debt/our economy/our people are suffering/our immigration level has risen to a level that is not sustainable.
Obama needs to back off and allow the citizens to make their own decisions. My opinion is that he is a trouble maker of his own making. He did not help the country during his time in office; but, degraded it and turned it into a weaponized government against the people and not following the Constitution.
The people are wising up to what he is trying to do and that is to finish off our country in the same manner that South Africa was destroyed and wonder if he was involved since during that time he was involved in world elections while serving as leader of the U.S.
Also:
40 percent Our new analysis shows that foreign investors owned about 40 percent of US corporate equity in 2019, up substantially over the last few decades. Are they part of the “enemy within” and part of the WOKE CULTURE. Foreigners do not have our Constitutional values.
We must listen to others not to Obama who is trying to destroy our country.
Donald Trump, the ex-president, has achieved a win in the New York Court of Appeals in a case unrelated to his hush money ruling.
This comes on the heels of being convicted of 34 charges linked to falsifying business records concerning a non-disclosure agreement payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
On the same day, the appeals court announced its decision to permit him to sue his niece, Mary Trump, for divulging tax-related details to The New York Times in 2018. This was reported by Reuters.
“The Appellate Division in Manhattan found a ‘substantial’ legal basis for Donald Trump to claim that his niece violated confidentiality provisions of a 2001 settlement over the estate of his father, Fred Trump Sr.,” the report said.
“A five-judge panel said it was unclear whether Mary Trump’s disclosures were subject to confidentiality, or how long both sides intended the provisions to remain in effect,” it said.
However, the court did signal that the former president is unlikely to be awarded anything close to the $100 million he is seeking.
“At a minimum, nominal damages may still be available on the breach of contract claim even in the absence of actual damages,” the court said.
“Mary has made valuable contributions to the public’s knowledge of the former president with her unique perspective as a family member,” the attorney for Mary Trump, Anne Champion, said. “We are confident she will be vindicated as the case proceeds.”
“The Appellate Division has affirmed the validity of President Trump’s substantial claim against Mary Trump. We look forward to resuming this suit to ensure she is held fully accountable for her blatant and egregious breach of contract,” the former president’s attorney, Alina Habba, said.
Reuters reported:
Thursday’s decision upheld a June 2023 ruling by Justice Robert Reed of the state Supreme Court.
Reed also dismissed Donald Trump’s claims against the Times and three reporters, and in January ordered him to pay $392,639 of their legal fees.
In November 2022, Reed dismissed Mary Trump’s separate lawsuit accusing her uncle and two of his siblings of defrauding her out of a multi-million-dollar inheritance.
The Times’ reporting challenged Donald Trump’s claim that he was a self-made billionaire.
It said he received the equivalent of $413 million from his father, largely the result of “dubious” tax schemes in the 1990s, including undervaluing his family’s real estate holdings. Donald Trump has denied wrongdoing.
Many legal experts have expressed confidence that the former president has a strong likelihood of having his convictions overturned on appeal in his criminal case.
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley commented on the guilty verdict of former President Donald Trump in his hush money trial, stating that there are strong reasons for a reversal based on procedural and constitutional issues.
Speaking to Fox News outside the Manhattan courtroom, Turley emphasized that there were concerns about manufactured charges and potential unconstitutional hindrances to Trump’s defense by presiding Judge Juan Merchan.
The jury’s decision marked the first felony conviction of a former U.S. president.
“I think the level of reversible error here really is quite considerable. It runs the waterfront of procedural to constitutional problems, including federal constitutional violations,” Turley began. “I don’t even see how you can meet the unanimity requirement in the way that this thing was instructed.
“Yeah, they were unanimous that some crime was committed on the secondary crime, but it’s apparently between the jurors and God as to what that crime was unless there is going to be some release of a jury form. We have not seen that jury form,” he continued, referencing a document that could explain on what basis jurors found Trump guilty.
“I think that, in the end, we were going to have a reversal. I’m fairly confident of that. Now, in the New York appellate system, they have a rule for Trump. They are very good lawyers in the New York system and credible people who want the system to work the way it is designed,” Turley continued. “I am eternally an optimist. I was an optimist about a hung jury. And I’m an optimist now about the appellate judges.”
Liz Cheney – the RINO who is prancing around with Kamala Harris is part of the problem.
As the fallout from these revelations continues, the credibility of key witnesses and the conduct of high-profile lawmakers like Cheney are under intense scrutiny. The situation underscores the complexities of the political landscape surrounding the January 6th investigation, with questions of truth and integrity at the forefront.
White House lawyer Eric Herschmann immediately disputed Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony but his rebuttal was hidden by Liz Cheney.
Glad RINO Liz is not on our team any more.
TV reported that the Democrats don’t like her appearing with Kamala?
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.
Cassidy Hutchinson, once hailed as a key witness in the January 6th hearings, has been accused of providing false testimony, according to new findings from the Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight. A handwriting expert, hired by the committee, has revealed that Hutchinson did not write a crucial handwritten note she claimed was hers during transcribed interviews and public testimony before the January 6th Committee.
Hutchinson’s testimony, prominently featured by former Representative Liz Cheney, played a significant role in the committee’s investigation into the events surrounding the Capitol riot. However, the recent revelations have cast doubt on Hutchinson’s credibility and raised serious questions about the integrity of the investigation.
During her testimony, Hutchinson stated that she had written a note outlining potential presidential talking points in the wake of the January 6th attack. This note was used to support her claims and add weight to her testimony. However, the handwriting expert’s analysis concluded that Hutchinson was not the author of the note, contradicting her sworn statements.
Critics have pointed out that Cheney, who was instrumental in leading the January 6th hearings, may have knowingly allowed Hutchinson to present false information. Allegations of Cheney coaching Hutchinson through her testimony and possibly encouraging perjury have surfaced, further complicating the fallout from the hearings.
Hutchinson’s testimony was a focal point of the January 6th hearings, capturing national attention with her claims about former President Donald Trump’s actions on that day. Now, with her credibility in question, the revelations could have significant implications for how the hearings and their findings are viewed by the public.
The accusations that Liz Cheney knowingly permitted false testimony could further polarize the public’s perception of the January 6th investigation. Calls for accountability and further investigation into the handling of Hutchinson’s testimony are already emerging, as critics argue that these developments undermine the legitimacy of the hearings.
Cassidy Hutchinson claimed during her sworn testimony that she drafted the note during a conversation with Mark Meadows for Trump on January 6, 2021.
White House lawyer Eric Herschmann immediately disputed Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony but his rebuttal was hidden by Liz Cheney.
Handwriting analysis proves Cassidy Hutchinson was lying.
“Hutchinson testified, under oath, that she wrote this note while Mark Meadows dictated to her “illegally” and Eric Herschmann, one of the President’s attorneys, dictated “without proper authority” and Hutchinson wrote both,” the Oversight Committee said.
“Herschmann refuted Hutchinson’s testimony and has maintained for years that HE was the one that wrote the note,” the Committee said. “The J6 Select Committee never contacted him to confirm the authorship of this note.”
Cassidy Hutchinson’s writing sample (looks like a middle schooler’s handwriting):
Herschmann’s writing sample:
Again – As the fallout from these revelations continues, the credibility of key witnesses and the conduct of high-profile lawmakers like Cheney are under intense scrutiny. The situation underscores the complexities of the political landscape surrounding the January 6th investigation, with questions of truth and integrity at the forefront.
It looks like the oil is rising to the surface of truth. Remember we still have people in jail who need too be released and the lying doesn’t speed up our people getting out of jail. Who started the fight – the Capital police were told to spray the folks and then threw the cannisters at them and they in turn threw the cannisters back at the police and that is when things got out of control.
Pelosi said it was her fault that the National Guard weren’t on hand. Also, it was Pelosi’s movie and she asked for the action.
