Featured

Home Featured
Featured posts

Trump Makes Fresh Bid To Toss Georgia Election Case

    1
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Donald Trump’s lawyers formally asked a judge to toss Trump’s Georgia 2020 election criminal racketeering case on First Amendment grounds.

    On Monday, Sadow filed court papers insisting that the allegations involved “core political speech,” telling the judge the indictment must be dismissed ahead of trial, according to The Hill.

    “The First Amendment, in affording the broadest protection to political speech and discussion regarding governmental affairs, not only embraces but encourages exactly the kind of behavior under attack in this Indictment,” wrote Sadow and Jennifer Little, Trump’s other Georgia attorney.

    “The Fulton County prosecutors have not identified any non-speech or non-advocacy conduct in the allegations against President Trump,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in the new filing. 

    “An examination of the indictment reveals why: none of the allegations relate to any non-speech or nonadvocacy conduct,” they continued. “Every charge and overt act alleged against President Trump rests on core acts of political speech and advocacy that lie at the heart of the First Amendment.”

    Trump and 18 co-defendants were charged in August with violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Trump and his 18 co-defendants have all pleaded not guilty to the combined 41 charges they face. The former president has also made numerous attempts to have the trial delayed, arguing his team would not be ready for trial by October.

    Amanda Head: WHAT on Earth?! NHL Goes Woke!

    1

    Even more sports teams seem to be regressing into the painfully woke ideology, and this time the National Hockey League is on the hook.

    Watch Amanda break down the situation below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Republican Congressman Ends Senate Campaign Days After Launching Bid

      1

      Days after announcing his campaign for Senate, Congressman Matt Rosendale (Mont.) is ending his campaign.

      On Friday, Rosendale released a statement explaining the quick decision to end his campaign.

      “Instead of one of those phony statements from politicians, here’s my statement on why I’m withdrawing my candidacy for the U.S. Senate,” Rosendale said in a statement. “As everyone knows, I have planned to run for the U.S. Senate and to win both the primary and the general election. However, the day I announced, President Trump then announced that he was endorsing a different candidate.”

      “I have long been a supporter of the president, and remain so,” he continued. “But I have been forced to calculate what my chances of success would be with Trump supporting my opponent. This race was already going to be tough, as I was fighting against Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican establishment in Washington. But I felt like I could beat them, as the voters do not agree with them choosing who would be the next U.S. Senator from Montana.”

      Rosendale said that Trump’s endorsement of retired U.S. Navy SEAL and businessman Tim Sheehy meant that he would not have the resources needed to win the primary.

      Rosendale shared he spoke with Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and they agreed that it was best for the party’s chances to regain control of the U.S. Senate if he ended his campaign.

      Daines responded to Rosendale’s announced on X, writing: “I appreciate Matt’s many years of service to Montana. It will take all Republicans working together to defeat Jon Tester in November.”

      NYC Woman Confronts MAGA Supporter – Gets Instant Dose Of Karma

        0
        Former President of the United States Donald Trump speaking with attendees at the 2022 Student Action Summit at the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa, Florida. [Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons]

        Ouch…

        A New York City subway rider was served an instant dose of karma after attempting to snatch a MAGA hat off of a fellow commuter.

        The unidentified woman is caught on camera calling the man wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat a “racist.”

        “If you f—-ing voted for Trump, you’re a racist!” she shouts in the video while pointing at the passenger wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat. “He’s a racist!” she added.

        “How can I be racist?” asked the man in response, turning to his friend in the subway car.

        “Just watch the news,” she added.

        The man replied, “I am highly educated.”

        “Oh, are you? Then why are you wearing that hat?” she asked while pointing in the man’s face. “Only uneducated people wear that hat.”

        Once the train reaches its stop, the man runs out of the subway car as the woman gives chase, seeking to remove his MAGA hat. But in her attempt to snatch the hat off his head with one big leap, the woman falls flat on her face as the man runs away.

        Watch:

        The video, shared by X, currently has nearly 4 million views.

        One commentator on X wrote, “Instant karma you, you said it right.”

        Another user added, “She’s the perfect definition of the Left. Thank you lady, for using yourself to make us laugh.”

        Legal Theorists Try To Attack Trump. Their Argument May Be Dead On Arrival.

        4
        Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

        A novel legal theory from two conservative legal scholars published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review that a section of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to run for president may be getting a court hearing in Florida.

        As Ballot Access news editor emeritus Richard Winger notes:

        On August 24, a Florida voter, Lawrence Caplan, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from being placed on 2024 ballots as a presidential candidate. Caplan v Trump, s.d., 0:23cv-61618.

        Caplan, who appears to be representing himself in the case, writes:

        Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides for the disqualification of an individual who commits insurrection against our government has remained on the books for some one hundred and fifty plus years without ever facing question as to its legitimacy. While one can certainly argue that it has not been thoroughly tested, that fact is only because we have not faced an insurrection against our federal government such as the one while we faced on January 6, 2021. It should also be noted that President Trump has since made statements to the effect that should he be elected, he would advocate the total elimination of the US Constitution and the creation of a new charter more in line with his personal values.

        Winger believes Caplan’s suit is “misguided:”

        The Fourteenth Amendment “insurrection clause” bars individuals from being sworn in to certain offices, but it does not bar them from seeking the office. When the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, there was no mechanism to prevent any voter from voting for any candidate.

        Caplan appears to be taking the law review article’s authors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulson, at their word:

        “No official should shrink from these duties. It would be wrong — indeed, arguably itself a breach of one’s constitutional oath of office — to abandon one’s responsibilities of faithful interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section Three,” Bode and Paulsen write.

        Alternatively, ordinary citizens could file challenges on the same grounds with state election officials themselves.

        And other such suits may emerge over the coming weeks. I’m not convinced any federal judge will be willing to read Section 3 like Baude and Paulson say it should be. It’s not because the Section’s words aren’t clear – they are.

        My concerns are akin to those of Cato’s Walter Olsen, who writes:

        …no one should assume that just because Baude and Paulsen have made a powerful intellectual case for their originalist reading, that the Supreme Court will declare itself convinced and disqualify Trump. Justice Antonin Scalia memorably described himself as a “faint‐​hearted originalist,” which captures something important about the thinking of almost every Justice—if overruling a wrongly decided old case threatens to disrupt settled expectations to the point of spreading chaos and grief through society, most of them will refrain. Stare decisis, and a general preference for continuity in law, still matters.

        Exactly. While some judges may nurse images of themselves as bold crusaders for justice, most jurists aren’t eager to upset established practice and precedent on a whim. Though, to be fair to the times when such upsets have occurred – Brown v. Board of Education, for example, or Griswold v. Connecticut – have been warranted, necessary, and beneficial.

        Does that apply in the Caplan case? A court will decide. But as I’ve long said about Trump, the only court he cares about is public opinion. If voters reject him, that will carry more weight and sanction than any court could ever deliver.

        The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News. Republished with permission.

        Why U.S. Conservatives Love Hungary’s Leader Victor Orban

          3
          burst

          ANALYSIS – The establishment media and liberal elites in the U.S.and Europe regularly condemn Hungarian president Victor Orban’s alleged ‘illiberalism,’ but U.S. conservatives see his domestic model, if not his foreign policy, as a welcome success story.

          Most recently American conservatives flocked to Budapest for a Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in May.

          Sadly, I was unable to attend but would have loved to have been there.

          At the next CPAC in Dallas, Texas this August, Orban was given a standing ovation.

          So, what is it about Orban that American conservatives like so much? 

          First, let me say there are things not to like about him and his government.

          They have been somewhat authoritarian against the press and opposition parties. Though some would claim that this was a needed housecleaning of entrenched leftist interests.

          My biggest complaint though is Orban’s and his Fidesz party’s soft approach toward Russia and Vladimir Putin (in great part due to Hungary’s energy dependence), and his relative lack of support for his invaded neighbor, Ukraine.

          I’m also unhappy and extremely concerned by his close ties to Communist China. 

          Under Orban, Hungary was the first European country to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the country has been called Beijing’s closest European ally.

          This makes a mockery of Orban’s original anti-communist ideals and gives Beijing a strategic foothold in the heart of Europe.

          However, China’s growing influence in Hungary is increasingly unpopular and has created a growing backlash. It featured prominently in the opposition’s campaign against Orban in the recent elections (which Orban’s party won in a landslide).

          I would like to see Orban and his party go back to their roots in opposing Communist China, and all similar regimes, including Putin’s Russia.

          But most U.S. conservatives don’t look at Orban’s foreign policies. They are far more interested in his domestic policies. And they like what they see.

          And yes, I like them too.

          As James Crisp writes in the Telegraph:

          …American conservatives find Mr. Orban’s willingness to use the state to fight culture wars tremendously exciting.

          He has made gay marriage constitutionally illegal (civil partnerships are allowed) and banned content “promoting” LGBT lifestyles from schools.

          He has also banned same-sex adoptions and ended legal recognition for transgender people, making it impossible for them to legally change their sex.

          Then in September, he introduced a law forcing women wanting an abortion to listen to the fetus’ heartbeat first.

          And then there are his successful battles against immigration and adverse demography.

          The Telegraph continues:

          It is now illegal to claim asylum at the Hungarian border instead of at one of the country’s consulates, for example, and he has built not one but two controversial walls on the border with Serbia and Croatia.

          He has also ushered in rules which mean families having three or more children are effectively exempt from tax in a bid to push up Hungary’s population.

          Due to his policies, the fertility rate in Hungary has gone from 1.2 births per woman to 1.6, curbing the need for more immigrants.

          I would support all these policies, in whole or in part, here in the U.S.

          And compared to the militant secularism of the French right, American conservatives also find his party’s religiosity reassuring, and more aligned with traditional American Christian values.

          Meanwhile, the conservative right is winning in other places, such as Italy, with the surprising victory of Georgia Meloni, and soon in the U.S. with Republicans retaking the House, and possibly the Senate too.

          In France, in June, the conservative party of Marine Le Pen secured enough seats to form a parliamentary group, giving it more clout, for the first time in four decades.

          And the right is about to return to Israel under Bibi Netanyahu. 

          The only big loss globally was in Brazil, where Jair Bolsonaro apparently just lost to Socialist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. That loss is likely less due to ideology than personality, but it is a loss, nonetheless.

          The takeaway from all this though is that until recently there hasn’t been a global conservative movement with similar ideas to counter the vast ‘Socialist International.’

          But things are changing now. And Orban’s Hungary is at the center of it. Or maybe to the right of it.

          Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

          Trump Files $5B Defamation Lawsuit Against BBC

          2
          Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

          President Donald Trump has filed a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC over its deceptive editing of a speech delivered by Trump on Jan. 6, 2021.

          The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Miami. In the 46-page filing, Trump’s team argues the edit gave the “mistaken impression” he called for violence on that day.

          “This instance of doctoring–in the form of distortion of meaning and splicing of entirely unrelated word sequences–is part of the BBC’s longstanding pattern of manipulating President Trump’s speeches and presenting content in a misleading manner in order to defame him, including fabricating calls for violence that he never made,” the lawsuit states.

          “The BBC, faced with overwhelming and justifiable outrage on both sides of the Atlantic, has publicly admitted its staggering breach of journalistic ethics, and apologized, but has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses,” it continues.

          The footage used in the broadcaster’s Panorama documentary spliced together two separate clips, creating the impression Trump told supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

          The two clips are separated by 55 minutes in Trump’s original speech, and the documentary also left out Trump’s explicit calls for supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”

          Speaking in Washington DC, the president accused the broadcaster of “putting terrible words in my mouth that I didn’t say” and claimed the BBC “may have used AI” in its investigative Panorama show. He later added: “They actually have me speaking with words that I never said, and they got caught… Let’s call [it] fake news.”

          In a statement to The New York Times, Trump’s legal team said: “The formerly respected and now disgraced BBC defamed President Trump by intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring his speech in a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 presidential election.”

          The fallout has already triggered resignations at the top of the BBC, including director general Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness.

          The BBC later issued an apology to Trump for his portrayal in the documentary:

          “[W]e accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” the statement said.

          “The BBC would like to apologize to President Trump for that error of judgement. This programme was not scheduled to be re-broadcast and will not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms,” it added.

          Trump’s latest lawsuit follows a string of high-profile legal battles against U.S.-based media outlets, including The New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

          Conservative Activist Uses Pepper Spray During Confrontation At DC’s Union Station

            0
            Arrest image via Pixabay

            A tense confrontation at Washington, D.C.’s Union Station went viral this week after conservative activist Cam Higby pepper-sprayed a woman who was caught on video lunging at him and striking him with his MAGA hat. Higby says the incident proves why his “Fearless Tour,” inspired by the late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, is needed now more than ever — to confront political hostility head-on while encouraging open and peaceful debate.

            Higby and his team had stopped at Union Station on Wednesday after hosting a debate event at the University of Maryland. In an interview with Fox News Digital, he said they were quietly sitting and talking with nearby protesters when a woman approached and became combative.

            “At some point, she dropped to her knees, intentionally … and she started yelling at us and started touching us,” Higby recalled. “I told her to back up and stop touching me, and she lunged at me and attacked me.”

            Video footage shows the woman shoving Higby back in his chair, seizing his MAGA hat, and hitting him with it before falling into a bush — at which point Higby deployed pepper spray to stop the attack.

            Higby noted he couldn’t tell if the woman was armed because she kept her hands in her pockets for much of the encounter. After being sprayed, she was seen being helped by fellow protesters, who poured water on her eyes and called the police.

            While officers initially appeared unlikely to make an arrest, the situation escalated when U.S. Park Police arrived. According to Higby, the woman turned aggressive again, resisted arrest, and even assaulted officers.

            “At this point now, she’s struggling with federal police, and then they tried to arrest her,” Higby said. “Her dad is yelling at us, ‘why did you spray my daughter,’ as she’s actively fighting with federal police. In my head, I’m thinking, this is why she got sprayed. It took four federal police officers to hold her down, and finally they loaded her into the back of the police car.”

            Police reports listed Higby and his colleague as victims, and the woman is expected to face federal charges.

            Growing Concerns About Violence Toward Conservatives

            The confrontation highlights a troubling trend: the increasing threat of political violence, particularly against conservatives. In recent years, Republican candidates, activists, and everyday voters have reported intimidation and harassment, from attacks on campaign volunteers to threats at events and rallies. Several high-profile incidents — including assaults on GOP canvassers and confrontations on college campuses — have raised alarm about whether conservatives can safely express their views in public. Free speech advocates warn that political polarization, combined with media narratives that vilify right-of-center voices, may be fueling hostility and emboldening bad actors.

            Despite criticism that his style provokes confrontation, Higby emphasized that his team’s approach is about debate, not violence. His group often sets up discussion tables on college campuses with signs such as “The left is violent! Let’s Debate!” — but he pointed out that at Union Station, there was no signage, and the only identifying factor was their MAGA hats.

            “We want people fired up. We want people to be excited to talk about political issues, but what we don’t invite people to do is touch us, and that’s the problem,” Higby said. “I think most of my takes are pretty reasonable. That’s your problem, not my problem — if you have such low impulse control that you can’t stop yourself from using physical violence.”

            Ivanka Trump Breaks Silence on Father’s Latest Presidential Campaign

              5
              Ivanka Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

              Donald Trump’s oldest daughter Ivanka was notably absent from his bombshell 2024 presidential campaign announcement Tuesday night.

              Ivanka, who previously served as a White House adviser, said she did not attend the Mar-a-Lago announcement because she does not plan to re-enter the political arena.

              Ivanka’s statement comes after the New York Post reported that the president “spent part of daughter Tiffany’s lavish Mar-a-Lago wedding this past weekend trying to convince his much-loved elder daughter, Ivanka, and son-in-law Jared Kushner to be with him on stage” when he announced tonight.

              “I love my father very much,” Ivanka said. “This time around, I am choosing to prioritize my young children and the private life we are creating as a family. I do not plan to be involved in politics.”

              “While I will always love and support my father, going forward I will do so outside the political arena,” she continued. “I am grateful to have had the honor of serving the American people and I will always be proud of many of our Administration’s accomplishments.”

              “I’ve had many roles over the years but that of daughter is one of the most elemental and consequential,” she said. “I am loving this time with my kids, loving life in Miami and the freedom and privacy with having returned to the private sector. This has been one of the greatest times of my life.”

              However, Ivanka’s husband Jared Kushner who was instrumental in crafting the Abraham Accords was in attendance during Trump’s campaign kickoff.

              Report: Support For Convicted Felon As President Surges

                4

                An interesting twist…

                Nearly a week after a Manhattan jury found former President Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records the dust has started to settle.

                According to a recent YouGov poll, Republicans say that they are now okay with allowing convicted felons to be president a significant rise from a similar poll in April.

                YouGov conducted its first poll on the political support of felons on May 31, following the conviction of former President Donald Trump, and the sharp rise is both equally stunning and not at all surprising. 

                The Political Polls account shared the details on social media:

                Similarly, a focus group of undecided voters following former President Trump’s conviction last week revealed mixed reactions to the historic verdict

                According to The New York Times, a transcription of the focus group features 11 swing voters, all of whom have previously supported Trump and President Biden or Hillary Clinton at least once during 2016, 2020 and 2024.

                Undecided voters were asked to discuss the impact of Trump’s guilty verdict in his New York trial and how it will affect their likelihood to vote for him. Some respondents said they were still “torn” after the verdict. However, it wasn’t a decisive factor for many of them. 

                “Inflation, the economy, immigration and abortion were the things that they said would ultimately determine their votes,” the Times notes. 

                James, a 53-year-old from Iowa, commented, “They’ve been going after Trump since he was elected in 2016. Democracy is supposed to be about the will of the people. I don’t really think the majority of the people in this country wanted to see him prosecuted on these charges.” 

                When other participants expressed their hesitancy to vote for a convicted felon, Jonathan, a 37-year-old from Florida, interjected, “You have to remember why Trump is the choice of millions of people. Trump represents a shock to the system. His supporters don’t hold him to the same ethical standards. He’s the antihero, the Soprano, the ‘Breaking Bad,’ the guy who does bad things, who is a bad guy but does them on behalf of the people he represents.”

                Frank, a 65-year-old from Arizona, replied, “The more I see Trump dealing with this, the less confident I am in him. A president’s got to be a step apart from just a good person. And I have a problem with his integrity and ethics. I’m swinging toward probably Biden. And I don’t like Biden. I don’t like him… got no ethics, either.”