Amanda Head: Fox News Viewers Down, MSNBC Up!
Viewers are leaving Fox News in droves…
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Opinion
Home Opinion
House Investigating Democrats Who Fraudulently Obtained Private Military Records of GOP Candidates
INVESTIGATION – As I noted in my late January PDB, a ‘Democrat Colluded With Air Force Against Black Female GOP Candidate.’
In that case, the Air Force took the fall for the release of the congressional candidate’s military record, blaming “a junior individual [who] didn’t follow proper procedures.”
However, Jennifer-Ruth Green, a Republican, continues to blame U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for illegally obtaining and releasing the information through corrupt Air Force personnel to damage her campaign in the weeks leading up to the November election.
The release despicably included information about a sexual assault Green had suffered while serving in Iraq.
But, it seems there is much more to the story.
We now learn she wasn’t the only target of the corrupt DCCC.
We also learn that a Democrat-linked consulting and research firm called ‘Due Diligence Group’ (DDG) has been at the center of a partisan effort to improperly, and likely illegally, obtain the service records of at least 11 service members via fraudulent SF-180 requests.
According to data from OpenSecrets.org, the DCCC has paid more than $100,000 to DDG since 2021.
SF-180s are used by veterans, authorized legal recipients and next of kin to legally obtain information from military personnel records.
Third-party requests require the service member to authorize their request with their signature.
In these 11 cases, it is clear the service members did not provide their authorization.
Just the News reports:
In an unprecedented breach, the Air Force improperly released to a research firm tied to Democrats’ congressional campaign arm the confidential personnel files of eleven members of the military, including one involving a retired lieutenant colonel running for office as a Republican that detailed how she had been sexually assaulted in the Air Force, Congress has been told.
And the House Armed Services and Oversight committee are demanding answers. The news outlet continues:
[In a February 13 letter], House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chairman James Comer are demanding that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin explain how he will prevent future breaches of military members’ private information while pressing to know if there will be criminal prosecutions.
Just the News further reports on the letter:
“The Office of the Secretary of the Air Force (OSAF) has informed the Committee that it released 11 individuals’ records over a 14-month period from October 2021-December 2022 to a private research firm which allegedly misrepresented itself in order to obtain access to the personnel records without authorization or consent.”
Rogers and Comer wrote that the release of other service members’ personal information highlights “not only the inadequacy of procedures to secure military personnel files, but also raises concerning questions of possible illicit motive or political partisanship.”
“This conduct by the Air Force is, at a minimum, unacceptable,” they added, “The conduct by the research firm is quite possibly criminal.”
Just the News reported that Rogers told the outlet that much more needs to be investigated.
Rogers stated:“It’s abhorrent that a Democrat-aligned firm would do something so despicable as fraudulently obtaining service records. Chairman James Comer and I pressed the Department of Defense for answers on this egregious breach.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Congress Reveals Stunning New Information on January 6 Attacker
Members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee investigating the federal government’s response to the January 6, 2021 incidents at the U.S. Capitol now reveal that a pair of pipe bombs planted at the Capitol Hill offices of the Republican and Democrat parties may have been a diversion to distract law enforcement from other events.
They also reveal that while the bombs contained live explosives, it does not appear the timers were operable, and the FBI may not even have interviewed the witnesses who discovered them.
In response, Chairmen Thomas Massie (R-KY), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray “revealing new information surrounding the FBI’s investigation into pipe bombs placed near the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) on January 5, 2021,” the Judiciary Committee reports.
“On June 7, 2023, the Committee on the Judiciary conducted a transcribed interview of Steven D’Antuono, the former Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO),” the Committee announced.
“In that role, Mr. D’Antuono oversaw the WFO’s investigations into the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, including the placement of pipe bombs near the headquarters of the DNC and RNC on January 5, 2021. Mr. D’Antuono’s testimony provided new information about the FBI’s investigation into the pipe bombs and reinforces our concerns about the FBI’s handling of this matter,” the Committee revealed.
In his transcribed interview, Steven D’Antuono “suggested that the FBI could not even determine whether the placement of the pipe bombs was a ‘diversionary’ tactic for the events of January 6,” the Committee also revealed.
D’Antuono testified:
MASSIE: Are you familiar with the diversion thesis, that these were set up to be a diversion?
D’ANTUONO: Yeah, I’ve heard people say that, but if you watch – I’ve done a lot of media reports. I was trying to get the information out there, tips and stuff like that, right. I will not speculate. I’m not going to speculate on that. I think that’s speculation, at best, when people say that it’s a diversionary tactic. We’ll never know until we find the person that actually did – or persons that actually did it. So I can’t speculate on that. Could it have been? Yes, that’s one theory. Obviously, it’s one theory. But is it the only theory? I don’t – I really don’t know.
MASSIE: It looks like the head Capitol Police [sic] believes it was a diversion.
D’ANTUONO: So Steve Sund, chief of police, yes. I believe he wrote that in his book. Again, it’s pure speculation. There’s no intelligence – look, I ran the investigation for 2 years until I stepped out. We don’t know. We don’t even know the gender at this point as to – we could speculate, and there’s a lot of people that are speculating as to the gender.
MASSIE: How confident are you that the individual depicted in the surveillance footage on January 5th set both of those pipe bombs in place?
D’ANTUONO: So the video that we saw, I feel confident that by the video that we have, that that person planted those.
D’Antuono also testified on the “viability of the pipe bombs, which, according to reporting, were deemed to be ‘inoperable,’” the Committee reports.
“D’Antuono referenced a report from the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, that the pipe bombs were viable, and ‘they could explode, and they could cause harm or death,’” the Committee notes, adding. “D’Antuono also acknowledged that the timer used on the pipe bomb could not have detonated the pipe bomb given the time already elapsed between placement and discovery.”
He testified:
MASSIE: Well, let me ask you this: Do you think it was technically possible for a kitchen timer . . . that has [a] 1-hour duration . . . to detonate a bomb 17 hours later?
D’ANTUONO: No, I don’t. And I saw the same kitchen timer as you. I agree. I don’t know when they were supposed to go off. Maybe they weren’t supposed to go off. We can’t—we don’t know. We honestly don’t know, and that’s some of the pain . . . .
D’Antuono’s testimony “provided additional details about the FBI’s use of geofencing technology to identify the pipe bomb suspect,” the Committee revealed.
He testified:
D’ANTUONO: So the – there’s a lot of phone data that came in. Yes, I’ve seen the same video. I’ve watched the same video. We put out the same video. It looks like a phone. Was it a real phone, a not a real phone, was it a ruse? Was it a – you know, I picked up my phone several times at meetings going, oh, yeah, I got to take this call, and walk out, right. The phone’s not on, right. So was the person just sitting there trying to pretend like they’re on a bench taking a phone call? We don’t know until we find the person, right, and ask them those questions.
We did a complete geofence. We have complete data. Not complete, because there’s some data that was corrupted by one of the providers, not purposely by them, right. It just – unusual circumstance that we have corrupt data from one of the providers. I’m not sure – I can’t remember right now which one. But for that day, which is awful because we don’t have that information to search. So could it have been that provider? Yeah, with our luck, you know, with this investigation it probably was, right. So maybe if we did have that – that data wasn’t corrupted – and it wasn’t purposely corrupted. I don’t want any conspiracy theories, right. To my knowledge, it wasn’t corrupted, you know, but that could have been good information that we don’t have, right. So that is painful for us to not to have that. So we looked at everything.
D’Antuono also testified that he did not definitively know if the FBI had interviewed the individual who discovered the pipe bomb at the DNC.
He testified:
MASSIE: So just to . . . put a fine point on it, you do not know whether they interviewed the person that discovered . . . the [bomb] at the DNC?
D’ANTUONO: I don’t know.
The Committee notes “D’Antuono conceded that it would be ‘investigation 101’ to interview the individuals who discovered the bombs, yet he was unable to confirm whether the FBI had taken this basic investigative step.”
He explained:
MASSIE: So – but the person who found – you either haven’t identified the person who found the second pipe bomb, or did you?
D’ANTUONO: I – honestly, sir, I don’t know the granularity of everything my agents and analysts did in that matter. It’s just – it’s a whole host of stuff that’s going on. As the [Assistant Director in Charge], as like any senior leader, I’m getting briefed on things, and that part never came up, so –
“D’Antuono’s testimony raises concerns about the FBI’s handling of the pipe bomb investigation, more than 890 days following the placement of the pipe bombs. To date, the FBI has failed to respond to the Committee’s requests for a briefing regarding the investigation,” the Committee concludes.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Congress May Blow Lid Off Backroom Deal For Trump Tax Return Leaker
Americans may soon learn why the man who stole the confidential financial information of 18,000 taxpayers got the lightest possible criminal sentence from the Biden administration after leaking the tax returns of one of those people – President Donald Trump.
U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) announced in a statement he has “sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi requesting information about the prosecution of Charles Littlejohn, the former IRS contractor who leaked the tax returns of President and Trump and thousands of others to ProPublica and the New York Times.”
“During Littlejohn’s sentencing, Biden-Harris Justice Department prosecutors stated that the scope and scale his unauthorized disclosure was unparalleled in the IRS’s history yet allowed Littlejohn to plead guilty to only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information, resulting in only a five-year prison sentence, three years’ supervised release, and a $5,000 fine,” the statement explains.
“It remains unclear why the Biden-Harris Justice Department chose to allow him to plead guilty to only a single felony count,” the statement notes.
Jordan’s letter reads, in part:
“The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing to investigate the unprecedented leak of protected taxpayer information by Charles E. Littlejohn. Despite confessing to leaking ‘thousands of individuals’ and entities’ tax returns’ to ProPublica and the New York Times, the Biden-Harris Administration charged Mr. Littlejohn, a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contractor, with only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information. Due to the Trump Administration’s commitment to transparency and accountability, the Committee has learned that the scope of Mr. Littlejohn’s leak was much broader than the Biden-Harris Administration had led the public to believe. Accordingly, we respectfully renew our request for documents relating to Mr. Littlejohn’s prosecution.
“During Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing, Justice Department prosecutors stated that the ‘scope and scale’ of Mr. Littlejohn’s unauthorized disclosure was ‘unparalleled in the IRS’s history.’ They claimed at the time that the data stolen by Mr. Littlejohn included ‘returns’ and ‘return information’ for approximately 18,000 individuals and 73,000 businesses. Yet, the Justice Department under President Biden allowed Mr. Littlejohn to plead guilty to only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information, which resulted in a five-year prison sentence, three years’ supervised release, and a $5,000 fine.
“During Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing, the judge expressed that she was ‘perplexed’ and ‘troubled’ by the overly lenient plea agreement, stating: ‘The fact that [Mr. Littlejohn] is facing one felony count, I have no words for.’
“On February 8, 2024, the Committee wrote to the Biden-Harris Justice Department requesting documents about the Department’s decision to pursue one charge against Mr. Littlejohn despite the severity of his actions. On March 18, 2024, the Biden-Harris Justice Department responded by defending Mr. Littlejohn’s single felony charge and his five-year prison sentence. The Biden-Harris Justice Department failed to produce any substantive or nonpublic information to the Committee.
“After President Trump took office, the IRS disclosed to the Committee that over 405,000 taxpayers were victims of Mr. Littlejohn’s leaks and that ’89 [percent] of the taxpayers [we]re business entities.’ While it is now clear that Mr. Littlejohn’s conduct violated the privacy of hundreds of thousands of American taxpayers, it remains unclear why the Biden-Harris Justice Department chose to allow him to plead guilty to only a single felony count. It appears that the Biden-Harris Justice Department authorized a plea agreement in this case that did not ensure full accountability for criminal conduct that was unprecedented in its scope and scale.”
FBI Now Going After Its Critics as ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ Spreading ‘Misinformation’
ANALYSIS – Be very afraid. It just keeps getting worse. Under Joe Biden, the FBI is daily being further weaponized against its critics and critics of the administration’s chosen narratives.
Following the disclosures that the FBI was in regular contact with Twitter employees to ensure they censored speech they designated ‘misinformation,’ the Bureau attacked anyone who criticizes them by, you guessed it – calling it ‘misinformation.’
It also called these FBI critics – ‘conspiracy theorists.’
This is a favorite leftwing buzz phrase often used to smear conservatives.
The most recent outrage came when the FBI made a statement to FOX News this week after journalists posted screenshots of messages showing how FBI agents communicated with top Twitter officials relating to reports and potential posts about Hunter Biden.
In its response statement, rather than addressing the valid concerns, the Bureau slammed its critics as ‘conspiracy theorists’ spreading misinformation.’
And one legal expert, constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, is sounding the alarm.
He told FOX News that it is a “menacing thing” for the nation’s largest law enforcement agency to declare that “combatting disinformation” is one of its top priorities, and then attack free speech advocates for criticizing them.
The Epoch Times reports:
A spokesperson for the FBI told Fox News, in response to several “Twitter Files” installments, that “conspiracy theorists” are “feeding the American public misinformation” and said they are trying to discredit the bureau and its agents.
That statement, Turley told Fox News, is “disturbing” because the FBI has allegedly “attacked many of us who were raising free speech concerns and called all of us collectively ‘conspiracy theorists spreading disinformation.’
“It was highly inappropriate, because the FBI has said that combatting disinformation is one of its priorities. So, it is a very menacing thing when you have the largest law enforcement agency attacking free speech advocates,” Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University who served as an expert witness during former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, told the outlet.
The FBI’s outrageous response comes after journalist Michael Shellenberger wrote about the outrageous FBI-Twitter collusion:
“What I quickly put together is a pattern where it appears that FBI agents, along with former FBI agents within the company [Twitter], were engaged in a disinformation campaign aimed at top Twitter and Facebook executives, as well as at top news organization executives to basically prepare them, prime them, get them set up to dismiss Hunter Biden information when it would be released.”
Turley noted that Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk “has confirmed that the FBI paid social media companies to help them deal with what they called disinformation, which most of us call censorship.”
Turley added to FOX that the FBI “were in continuous communication [with Twitter], as were other agencies, targeting specific citizens and specific posters to be banned or suspended.”
“That really does smack of an agency relationship and that could violate the first amendment,” he warned.
But be very afraid, because things are now getting worse.
Now the FBI may also be coming after anyone who points out this clear and demonstrated FBI-Big Tech collusion for being a “conspiracy theorist” spreading “misinformation.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Biden’s Pick for Chairman of Joint Chiefs Used Racist Hiring Practices
ANALYSIS – In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Affirmative Action at top universities as unconstitutional, the same race-based policies used to achieve ‘diversity’ elsewhere are being scrutinized nationwide, including at the Pentagon.
And now we learn that Joe Biden’s pick to replace Army General Mark Milley as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, himself had racist hiring practices.
That could make him ineligible to be the nation’s top military officer.
Air Force General Charles Q. (CQ) Brown, a man of color, is accused of making “discriminatory comments and potential unlawful impact on military personnel,” according to the American Accountability Foundation (AFF).
The AFF was set up in early 2021 to expose the leftist backgrounds of Biden’s top nominees.
Multiple sources have reported that Brown made statements while chief of staff for the Air Force and during his previous tour as Pacific Air Forces commander suggesting that he hired personnel and promoted them based on race, rather than merit, to force diversity in the Air Force.
“Race-based hiring has no place in the military. Our men and women in uniform deserve to be led on missions by the most qualified and skilled officers and leaders our nation has, who will give them the best chance of success and getting home safely,” said the AFF in a statement.
Considering the accusations against Brown, the AAF filed a complaint with the Air Force Inspector General and requested an official investigation into Brown’s allegedly discriminatory comments and practices.
As the Daily Caller (DC) reported:
While serving as the Air Force’s chief of staff and before that as Pacific Air Forces commander, Brown made statements suggesting he selects individuals for certain roles and promotions based on their race to build purposefully diverse organizations, multiple sources show. Brown could be violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) argues, making him ineligible to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The DC added:
If Brown has acted upon his “publicly stated beliefs on what should be official hiring policy of the U.S. Air Force [race-based hiring], it would present a significant likelihood of violating the civil and constitutional rights of military personnel” as well as Department of Defense (DOD) codes of conduct, AAF said.
And records appear to show that Brown did exactly that. Brown’s diversity policies appear to have prioritized bringing on non-white officers and recruits. The Air Force Times reported that 2022, Brown changed the Air Force’s demographic goals for officers to 67% of them being white, down from 80% in 2014.
But things have only gotten worse under Brown. According to a February 2023 Air Force newsletter, the Air Force also recently pledged to track officer promotions based on “race, ethnicity and gender.”
So now the discrimination Brown has implemented isn’t only against white men, its against straight white men as well.
I agree with AFF’s concerns, if these allegations are confirmed they should make ‘CQ Brown ineligible to serve as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And the United States Senate should not confirm him to that lofty role.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Amanda Head: Biden Admin Leaves Americans In The Dark As Usual
Joe Biden prefers to keep Americans in the dark…especially when it comes to his administration’s many many mistakes.
Watch Amanda break down the latest scandal below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Controversial Lefty-Feminist ‘Barbie’ Movie Tops $1 Billion at Box Office
Barbie was released in cinemas worldwide on July 21. Since then, according to Warner Bros., the colorfully controversial, left-leaning, gender-bender, fantasy-comedy movie has drawn in $459m so far in the U.S. and $572m internationally.
That means it has already topped $1 billion overall. This is a huge global smash. But what does it say about us?
Oscar-nominated Barbie writer and director Greta Gerwig also became the first female filmmaker to surpass the billion-dollar benchmark as a solo director, Warner Bros. said.
Other female directors have helmed films that have surpassed the $1bn-mark, but they were working with others. Frozen, the animated blockbuster, and its sequel have generated more than $1.4bn in box office takings and were co-directed by Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck.
Meanwhile, Captain Marvel, starring Brie Larson and co-directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, generated more than $1.1bn at the box office.
But what is the very pink themed movie, starring Margot Robbie (the primary Barbie) and Ryan Gosling (the primary Ken), about? What is its messaging?
The feminist comedy with a PG-13 rating’s plot hinges on Barbie leaving her fake but perfectly idealized world behind and, like Pinocchio before her, becoming “real.”
That’s when it gets political and goes straight into lefty social issues like ‘the patriarchy,’ and gender confusion-fusion.
Elon Musk mocked the film on ‘X,’ formerly known as Twitter, saying: “If you take a shot every time Barbie says the word ‘Patriarchy,’ you will pass out before the movie ends.”
Conservatives have derided the Barbie movie’s anti-male themes, and inclusion of a trans-gender actor/actress playing one of the Barbies. The critics include journalist Piers Morgan and commentator Ben Shapiro. Newsweek reported:
“If I made a movie mocking women as useless dunderheads, constantly attacking ‘the matriarchy,’ and depicting all things feminist as toxic bulls***, I wouldn’t just be canceled, I’d be executed,” Morgan wrote in his columns for British newspaper The Sun and The New York Post after seeing the Barbie movie.
Shapiro meanwhile went as far as to burn a Barbie and Ken doll on Saturday, after seeing the movie the night before. The following Monday he claimed he had received death threats for his stunt.”
Writing for the New York Post, Morgan added: “the movie achieves exactly what it wanted to achieve and that is to establish the matriarchy as the perfect antidote to the patriarchy when in fact it’s just the same concept that they asked us all to detest in the first place.”
The movie “forgets its core audience of families and children while catering to nostalgic adults and pushing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender character stories,” wrote a contributor to Movieguide, a site with a conservative Christian bent.
Ginger Gaetz, wife of conservative Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, posted on ‘X’ that at the premiere, she saw “disappointingly low T from Ken,” referring to testosterone, and she also called him a “beta” male, not an alpha.
Less politically, Time said: “Barbie never lets us forget how clever it’s being, every exhausting minute.”
Mattel has a lot riding on its $100m Barbie movie, the first of a planned slew of films from the toy-making behemoth that include Masters of the Universe, Barney, Hot Wheels and Magic 8 Ball, to name but a few.
The Barbie doll was launched by Mattel in 1959, when the toy-maker itself was only 14 years old, and has sold over a billion units over six decades.
Today, Barbie is still considered Mattel’s crown jewel, driving about a third of its $5 billion annual revenue.
Since 2018, Mattel has been working on a strategy to license its intellectual properties to Hollywood, to reverse a sales decline over recent years. The new movie was a big gamble for Mattel Films.
A hit would boost toy sales, a flop would have done the opposite – threatening other projects currently in pre-production. But the gamble has clearly paid off.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
85,000 Migrant Kids Go Missing at US Border Under Biden as Questions About Trafficking Explode
The Biden administration is unable to locate 85,000 child migrants initially processed at the U.S. border, and now members of Congress are demanding an explanation amid reports the children are being trafficked.
Seventy-six House Republican reveal in a letter that Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are “knowingly and recklessly discharging unaccompanied children to adults across the country and doing nothing to find the tens of thousands they had lost touch with,” the Washington Examiner reports.
The letter was issued after the New York Times reported the Biden administration cannot locate 85,000 children initially processed as migrants seeking asylum, and many are being forced into child labor.
Lawmakers “referenced reports by the New York Times that concluded children were extorted by smugglers to pay off the thousands they owed through forced labor, including sex trafficking. Other children were trafficked against their will and are effectively slaves within the U.S.,” the Examiner reports
“The border crisis is not a stand-alone crisis. It has created a new catastrophe in every direction,” said Congressman Morgan Luttrell (R-TX)
“Unaccompanied migrant children are crossing our border, and Joe Biden’s failed policies aren’t leading them to the American Dream. Instead, these children are released with no follow-up and are facing forced labor, sex trafficking, and abuse,” said Luttrell.
“The policies of the Biden Administration are failing everyone. Secretary Mayorkas and President Biden not only need to address the ongoing exploitation and lack of contact with minors, but also secure our southern border and ensure people seeking to come to our great country are going through the proper, legal channels,” Luttrell added.
Even worse, it appears many of the children tried to contact U.S. officials to seek help.
“We are particularly heartbroken to read reports of children contacting HHS after their release to their sponsors in hopes of the agency intervening, with no follow up,” the letter reveals.
“The policies of this administration are enriching the cartels and transnational criminal organizations, who are profiting from the pain, abuse, and exploitation of these children as they smuggle them into the country,” the lawmakers conclude.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Legal Theorists Try To Attack Trump. Their Argument May Be Dead On Arrival.
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.