Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) is once again raising the stakes, doubling down on her previous claims that an unknown number of Trump voters might be gearing up for a Ruby Ridge or Waco-style standoff.
Waters’ rhetoric hit new heights during an appearance on MSNBC, where she dissected Trump’s language.
“I’m worried that he’s so divisive and that he’s talking about retribution, and they’re talking about revenge and I think that that’s dangerous. He’s even mentioned civil war at one point, talked about there would be bloodshed,” Waters told host Jonathan Capehart.
“Are they preparing a civil war against us?” she asked, leaving the question hanging in the air. “Should we be concerned about our safety? What is [Trump] doing with this divisive language? It is dangerous.”
The Los Angeles-area Democrat promised to enlist the “criminal justice system” to investigate what she described as the activities of “domestic terrorists,” clearly pointing the finger at Trump supporters.
Low IQ Maxine Waters calls supporters of President Trump "domestic terrorists" and wonders if they're "preparing a civil war against us" pic.twitter.com/iOvXuJXSwy
“It is not just that [Trump is] a criminal, this is a man who disrespects the Constitution and democracy and we have got to find out what they are doing as domestic terrorists [who] tried to take over the government on Jan. 6,” Waters continued.
With a flair for the dramatic, Waters posed another rhetorical question, “How far is this going to go? Are they going to be attacking? Whom are they going to attack? What are we going to do? We’re trying to get an investigation going about that.” (RELATED: CNN Lawyers Take Unexpected Stand – Blast Judge Merchan And Back Trump Big Time)
After Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts, Waters took to social media with gusto, lambasting the presumptive Republican nominee.
Trump shut your mouth! You talk about saving the Constitution? You’re the one who has disrespected the Constitution and you have supporters who believe we should get rid of the Constitution! Just shut your mouth, you’re convicted on all counts!
Chatting yet again with host Jonathan Capehart, Waters declared her plan to press the Justice Department and the White House on how President Biden would respond if his opponent refuses to accept the election results.
But she didn’t stop there – Waters went on to allege (without evidence) that shadowy “right-wing organizations” are “training up in the hills somewhere,” suggesting that extremist violence against the government isn’t just a possibility but practically a done deal.
A group of Evanston, Illinois, residents are suing their city government over a $20 million scheme to give away $25,000 each to Black residents as “reparations” for wrongs experienced by past generations.
The nonprofit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced it “filed a class action lawsuit against Evanston, Illinois, on behalf of six individuals over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program which makes $25,000 payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969.” (RELATED: San Francisco Debates $5 Million Per Person Reparations Proposal)
The New York Times photo archive, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“The Evanston, Illinois’ ‘reparations’ program is nothing more than a ploy to redistribute tax dollars to individuals based on race,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This scheme unconstitutionally discriminates against anyone who does not identify as Black or African American. This class action, civil rights lawsuit will be a historic defense of our color-blind Constitution.”
“Through a series of resolutions, the Evanston City Council created a program to provide $25,000 cash payments to residents who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969 and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren,” JW reports, after filing a class action, civil rights lawsuit which challenges “on Equal Protection grounds Defendant City of Evanston’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a program that makes $25,000 payments to residents and direct descendants of residents of the city five-plus decades if not more than a century ago. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the Defendant’s use of race to be unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing to use race as a requirement for receiving payment under the program and request that the Court award them and all class members damages in the amount of $25,000 each.”
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
JW argues that “the program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because:”
Remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling governmental interest. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 505 (1989); see also Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 307 ((1978) (opinion of Powell, J.) (describing “societal discrimination” as “an amorphous concept of injury that may be ageless in its reach into the past.”) Remedying discrimination from 55 to 105 years ago or remedying discrimination experienced at any time by an individual’s parents, grandparents, or great grandparents has not been recognized as a compelling governmental interest…
Defendant also has not and cannot demonstrate that its use of a race as an eligibility requirement is narrowly tailored. Among other shortcomings, Defendant’s use of race as a proxy for experiencing discrimination between 1919 and 1969 does not limit eligibility to persons who actually experienced discrimination during that relevant time period and therefore is overinclusive. Defendant also failed to consider race-neutral alternatives, such as requiring prospective recipients show that they or their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents actually experienced housing discrimination during the relevant time period because of an Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure, as Defendant requires for the third group of prospective recipients. Nor did Defendant take into account race-neutral anti-discrimination remedies before adopting its race-based eligibility requirement.
According to JW, the program works as follows:
The first group of persons eligible for the $25,000 payments are current Evanston residents who identify as Black or African American and were at least 18 years of age between 1919 and 1969. Evanston refers to this group as “ancestors.”
The second group are individuals who identify as Black or African American who are at least 18 years of age and have at least one parent, grandparent, or great grandparent who identifies (or identified) as Black or African American, lived in Evanston for any period between 1919 and 1969, and was at least 18 at the time. Evanston refers to this group as “direct descendants.” A “direct descendant” is not required to be a current resident of Evanston to receive the payment.
“At no point in the application process are persons in the first and second groups required to present evidence that they or their ancestors experienced housing discrimination or otherwise suffered harm because of an unlawful Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure or some other unlawful act or series of acts by Evanston between 1919 and 1969,” Judicial Watch states in the laws.” “In effect, Evanston is using race as a proxy for having experienced discrimination during this time period.” (RELATED: Squad Member Introduces Proposal For $14 Trillion In Reparations)
Judicial Watch states in the lawsuit that “the six plaintiffs satisfy all eligibility requirements for participating in the program as ‘direct descendants’ other that the race requirement (the actual number of individuals who are potential class members is in the tens of thousands).”
Christine Svenson of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC is assisting Judicial Watch in the lawsuit.
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.
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is in hot water over her recent book and it could cause a major dent in her career.
Noem’s new memoir No Going Back has sparked several controversies over its content, including an anecdote about Noem killing her 14-month-old dog and a story about the governor meeting North Korean leader Kim Jong-un which the Republican has yet to corroborate.
Interrogating Noem over the book on Newsmax’s Wake Up America, Rob Finnerty assessed that Donald Trump likely won’t invite the Republican to be his running mate due to the recent scandal.
Finnerty then said, “Governor, if you asked me a month ago who’s at the top of the list to run with Donald Trump, I would have said your name. If you asked me that same question this morning, I don’t even think you’re on the list.”
The host went on to say that the content within Noem’s book, specifically her allegedly fabricated meeting with Kim Jong-un, is likely what spoiled her chances of becoming Trump’s running mate.
Kristi Noem crashes and burns this morning on Newsmax 👇
NEWSMAX HOST ROB FINNERTY: If you asked me a month ago who's at the top of the list to run with Donald Trump, I would've said your name. If you asked me that same question this morning, I don't even think you're on the… pic.twitter.com/3sKHpo3pFY
“I should not have put that anecdote in the book,” conceded Noem, to which Finnerty shot back, “But an anecdote indicates that it happened, right?”
“I’m not going to talk about my conversations with world leaders,” Noem bluntly declared – a statement she has made repeatedly when pressed about the alleged meeting with Kim Jong-un.
Finnerty snapped, “Governor, I’m not asking you about the details of this alleged meeting. I’m asking if the meeting actually happened. I don’t think it did and I think if it did, you’d be able to confirm for me that, ‘Yes, it did, and here’s when it happened.’ It happened, say, at such and such a date or a month or you don’t have to be specific.”
After Noem refused yet again to say whether the alleged meeting actually took place, Finnerty continued, “Again, I think at one point you were at the top of that list, but you’re going to get questions a lot more difficult than that.”
Despite endorsing Noem’s book, Trump allegedly told several people he was “disgusted” by the governor’s anecdote about killing her 14-month-old dog Cricket in a gravel pit.
According to unnamed sources, Trump was baffled by Noem’s confession that she shot her dog after it proved “less than worthless” as a hunting dog and questioned, “Why would she do that?” and “What is wrong with her?”
Donald Trump is not sad to see the Republican National Committee’s top lawyer go.
“Great news for the Republican Party. RINO lawyer Charlie Spies is out as Chief Counsel of the RNC. I wish him well!” Trump posted late Sunday on Truth Social.
Officials confirmed Saturday that Spies was leaving his post as RNC chief counsel roughly two months after taking the job as part of a broader staffing overhaul once Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee for November.
There were reportedly tensions between Trump and Spies after Spies had criticized Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was fraudulent and stolen.
“Charlie approached RNC Chief of Staff, Chris Lacivita, about potential time commitment conflicts and it was agreed that, while we appreciate and value Charlie’s expertise and professionalism, he cannot do this role full time and still maintain the obligations to his law firm that he has spent years successfully building,” RNC spokesperson Danielle Alvarez said in a statement to The Hill.
The RNC had announced in March it was hiring Spies, along with former One America News host Christina Bobb and former Trump administration attorney Bill McGinley to lead its legal efforts, with the latter two focusing on election integrity.
Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Republicans Kari Lake and Mark Finchem’s lawsuit over the use of voting machines in Arizona elections.
The Hill reports Lake and Finchem asked the Supreme Court to review a federal appellate judge’s decision to dismiss their case last October. The suit sought to block electronic voting machines from being used in the state, questioning their accuracy and reliability.
Lawyers for Lake, who is running for a Senate seat in Arizona this cycle, and Finchem, who is seeking a state Senate seat, argued in a court filing to the Supreme Court that they had sufficiently argued that “[a]ll Arizona-certified optical scanners and ballot marking devices, as well as the software on which they rely, have been wrongly certified for use”; Arizona’s voting machines had been “hacked” and “manipulated”; and that there were apparent discrepancies in the Maricopa County’s vote count after the 2020 election.
The lawsuit was filed ahead of the November 2022 midterms while Lake was running for governor.
The Supreme Court’s decision to decline to revisit the federal court’s decision puts a cap on Lake’s and Finchem’s lawsuit.
“We are obviously disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review the decisions of the Arizona district court and the Ninth Circuit, and order that our challenge to the 2022 election procedures be heard on the merits,” said Kurt Olsen, one of the attorneys that sought to get the Supreme Court to consider the case, in a statement, who argued new information came to light after their case was dismissed by the circuit court.
“Although the Supreme Court grants review in less than 1 percent of cases presented on petition, we believe we presented a case.”
“The Kari Lake and Mark Finchem case was dismissed based on a purported lack of standing to assert an injury,” Olsen wrote. “Therefore, the courts, even now, have not ruled on the merits of our case. We will continue to raise these issues especially in light of the upcoming 2024 election.”
A coalition of anti-Trump Republicans are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent a second Trump term in the White House.
Republican Voters Against Trump plans to spend $50 million on the anti-Trump campaign.
The campaign is organized by Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist and longtime Trump critic. The plan is to target “moderate Republican” and Republican-leaning voters in swing states with testimonial videos of past Trump supporters who will share why they won’t be supporting the former president in the next election.
According to The Hill, the ads featuring the former Trump voter testimonials will be deployed on TV, streaming platforms, billboards, radio and digital media. They will run in the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
“Former Republicans and Republican-leaning voters hold the key to 2024, and reaching them with credible, relatable messengers is essential to re-creating the anti-Trump coalition that made the difference in 2020,” Longwell, the president of the group’s Republican Accountability PAC, said in a Tuesday statement.
“It establishes a permission structure that says that—whatever their complaints about Joe Biden—Donald Trump is too dangerous and too unhinged to ever be president again. Who better to make this case than the voters who used to support him?”
The voters who are sharing their testimonies are generally not applauding Biden or arguing why he should be reelected in 2024, but mostly sharing which incidents made them oppose the former president.
“I voted for Donald Trump in 2020. January 6 was the end of Donald Trump for me,” Ethan, a Wisconsin resident, says in the video. He will be voting for Biden. “The peaceful transfer of power is one of the defining pieces of our democracy, and I could not believe that someone I had formerly supported would get behind an effort that would throw that under the bus … There is no choice.”
The group had a similar strategy in 2020 where they shared over 1,000 testimonials during the election.
[Photo Credit: The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott (R) responded to former President Donald Trump’s comments over the weekend naming him as a potential running mate.
Trump revealed to Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo over the weekend he is considering Scott, along with South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem to be the next vice presidential running mate. (RELATED: Trump Names Two People When Asked About Potential VP Picks)
“The only thing I can tell you is that the one thing we need is four more years of President Donald Trump,” Scott told Fox News Digital on Monday.
“We were better off under Trump. In order for us to be successful, the one thing I can’t afford to do is take my eye off the ball. The eye on the ball means making sure that President Trump gets four more years,” he added.
Over the weekend, Trump told Bartiromo that his top priority in choosing a vice presidential candidate is selecting someone who could easily step into his shoes in case of an emergency.
Trump brings up Tim Scott and Kristi Noem when asked about his pick for Vice President
“Always, it’s got to be who is going to be a good president. Obviously, you always have to think that because in case of emergency. Things happen, right? No matter who you are, things happen. That’s got to be No. 1,” Trump said.
On Monday, former Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway advised the President to consider choosing a person of color for VP during an op-ed published in The New York Times.
“With a crisis on the border, economic dissatisfaction, fears about crime, a parents’ rights renaissance and multiple wars and threats across the globe, Mr. Trump’s deputy must be able to navigate chaos and challenges at home and abroad,” Conway wrote.
“Taking all of this into consideration, if I were advising Mr. Trump, I would suggest he choose a person of color as his running mate, depending on vetting of all possibilities and satisfaction of procedural issues like dual residency in Florida,” Conway wrote. “Not for identity politics a la the Democrats, but as an equal helping to lead an America First movement that includes more union workers, independents, first-time voters, veterans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans.”
Conway listed Sen. Tim Scott, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) among the potential options.
Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Jacob Chansley, the Capitol rioter who came to be known as the “QAnon Shaman,” has reportedly filed paperwork signaling his interest in running for the Arizona congressional seat being vacated by Debbie Lesko (R).
The Arizona Republic reported that a candidate statement of interest was signed by Jacob Angeli-Chansley and filed with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office on Thursday, indicating he would seek to run as a Libertarian. He has also been known to go by Jacob Angeli.
Chansley, 35, gained notoriety for his horned fur hat, bare chest and face paint that made him one of the more recognizable Jan. 6 rioters. He pleaded guilty to a charge of obstructing an official proceeding and sentenced to 41 months in prison. Chansley, who grew up in Phoenix, served 27 of those months before being released to a halfway house this past March.
The Associated Press reported that while the Constitution does not bar felons from running for Congress, Arizona law prevents them from voting in elections until they complete their sentence and have the right restored.
Former Republican Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters has also jumped into the race for Lesko’s seat.
“I’m running for Congress, to fight for Arizona’s 8th,” Masters said on X, formerly Twitter. “Biden has failed. We need Trump back. We need to stop inflation, Build the Wall, avoid WW3, and secure Arizona’s water future. We need to fight for our families.”
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy says he won’t open an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden without a floor vote. “If we move forward,” it “would occur through a vote” on the House floor, the speaker explained to Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle.
McCarthy’s announcement confirms that moving forward with an impeachment inquiry will require 218 yes votes.
Appearing on Charlie Kirk’s podcast, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said that she believed the House Republican Conference has the votes to initiate formal proceedings against Biden.
🚨BREAKING: Speaker Kevin McCarthy has confirmed that an impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden would happen through a formal vote on the House floor requiring 218 yes votes to initiate the process. @RepMTG confirmed on my show today that she believes House GOP now has the votes.
“To open an impeachment inquiry is a serious matter, and House Republicans would not take it lightly or use it for political purposes. The American people deserve to be heard on this matter through their elected representatives,” McCarthy told Breitbart News in a statement. “That’s why, if we move forward with an impeachment inquiry, it would occur through a vote on the floor of the People’s House and not through a declaration by one person.”
McCarthy’s position is a departure from how his predecessor Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., handled the first impeachment inquiry against former President Donald Trump. In 2019, Pelosi unilaterally proclaimed that the House would advance an impeachment inquiry against Trump after the controversy over his infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
“This week, the president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically,” Pelosi said on Sept. 24, 2019. “Therefore, today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I’m directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella.
“The president must be held accountable,” she continued. “No one is above the law.”
A McCarthy spokesperson has not responded to Fox News’ request for comment.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony S. Fauci. Photo Credit: Fogarty International Center from Bethesda, MD, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
In the wake of revelations that the former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci may have knowingly lied to Congress in sworn testimony, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is asking the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation.
Paul has asked U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., Matthew Graves to open an investigation into testimony Fauci made to the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) on May 11, 2021, in which Fauci denied funding research at viral laboratory in China where the COVID-19 virus reportedly originated.
“The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Fauci said under oath in May.
But a month later a June 14, 2023, Government Accountability Office report concluded the Wuhan Institute of Virology did receieve NIH funding.
There are concerns the COVID-19 virus “may have been genetically engineered because gain-of-function research was taking place in Wuhan before the pandemic,” Paul reports.
Now Paul wants to determine if Fauci’s statements were illegal.
“I warned Dr. Fauci of the criminal implications of lying to Congress and offered him an opportunity to recant his previous statement,” Paul wrote in a letter to Graves. “Dr. Fauci’s testimony is inconsistent with facts that have since come to light.”
“Before Congress, Dr. Fauci denied funding gain-of-function research, to the press he claims to have a dispassionate view on the lab leak hypothesis, and in private he acknowledges gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to his colleagues. His own colleagues have acknowledged Dr. Fauci’s inconsistency. A congressional hearing, however, is not the place for a public servant to play political games – especially when the health and well-being of American citizens is on the line,” Paul writes.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 it is a federal crime to make “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” as part of “any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.”
The penalty for an offense includes criminal fines and imprisonment of up to five years.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It was first published in American Liberty News.
