Judge tosses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team

Claims are “entirely divorced from the facts”

Judge John Koeltl, a Bill Clinton appointee sitting in the Southern District of New York, wrote in his 81-page opinion Tuesday that the DNC’s charge of illegal hacking with regard to the 2016 presidential campaign was “entirely divorced” from the facts.

The ruling came as Democrats have increasingly attempted to tie the Trump team to illegal activity in Russia — despite former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings that the campaign, in fact, refused multiple offers by Russians to involve them in hacking and disinformation efforts.

The Democratic National Committee initially filed its suit in April 2018.

“In short, the DNC raises a number of connections and communications between the defendants and with people loosely connected to the Russian Federation, but at no point does the DNC allege any facts to show that any of the defendants other than the Russian Federation, participated in the theft of the DNC’s information,” Judge Koeltl said.

“Nor does the DNC allege that the defendants ever agreed to help the Russian Federation steal the DNC’s documents,” he added.

Judge Koeltl denied the Trump team’s motion for sanctions but dismissed the suit with prejudice, meaning it had a substantive legal defect and could not be refiled.

This was the President’s exuberant reaction:

….vindication & exoneration from the Russian, WikiLeaks and every other form of HOAX perpetrated by the DNC, Radical Democrats and others. This is really big “stuff” especially coming from a highly respected judge who was appointed by President Clinton. The Witch Hunt Ends!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2019

Advertisement

Feds to retry harborer of illegals

Scott Warren is a man who has more empathy for illegal invaders than commitment to the United States of America. Aligned with the fallaciously named, “No More Deaths,” a group that provides assistance to illegal border crossers, he was charged with three felonies resulting from his Jan. 2018 arrest by Border Patrol agents in Ajo, for providing what the leftist media refers to as “humanitarian aid.” The Arizona Republic actually headlined his arrest as “suspicious.”

The Tucson jury deadlocked. Outside the courthouse, Warren castigated the government for charging him for smuggling illegals, saying it, “criminalizes humanitarian aid, kindness, and solidarity.”

“Today it remains as necessary as ever for local residents and humanitarian aid volunteers to stand in solidarity with migrants and refugees,” Warren said. “And we must also stand for our families, friends, and neighbors, and the very land itself, most threatened by the militarization of our borderland communities.”

A retrial is scheduled for November 12.

Parents who pay astronomical tuition and fees to send their kids to Arizona State University will be thrilled to know this 36-year-old goon is a member of the faculty providing his skewed brand of influence.

AZ Gov. Ducey takes on your 2nd Amendment rights

NRA raises red flag over “Red Flag” laws

Breitbart reports very disturbing news emanating from the office of Arizona’s lame duck Republicrat Gov. Doug Ducey. He is aligning with David French, the Jeff Flake of National Review, both of whom publicly stated in 2016 they would not support GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. French ultimately left the Republican Party. Jeff Flake was unable to run for reelection due to 18% approval numbers.

In this case, it’s our Second Amendment rights that are at stake, and the slippery facilitator is a former ice cream vendor, initially recruited to run for public office by John McCain, and now occupying the ninth floor governor‘s office.

The central component to Ducey’s gun control push is a Red Flag law that creates Severe Threat Order of Protection or STOP Orders. Such orders allow guns to be confiscated from law abiding Arizonans. Arizona Capitol Times reported Ducey referred to this scheme as the “crown jewel” of gun legislation.

Ducey’s spokesman Patrick Ptak veers off the veracity cliff citing NRA support for the measure.

“There’s a reason why NRA’s Arizona director has said this ‘bill would protect the rights of law-abiding Arizonans,’” Ptak is quoted in an emailed statement. “It ensures due process, requiring one of the highest standards of evidence from a judge: Clear and Convincing Proof. STOP orders are temporary and require law enforcement to return firearms after expiration, and the bill imposes severe felony penalties for filing false petitions.”

That’s a lot of puffery describing unwarranted confiscation. Additionally, there’s a major contradiction between what flack Ptak would have us believe and what the NRA actually says. For the NRA’s take on this critically important issue read: “Why NRA Is Raising A Red Flag Over ‘Red Flag’ Laws.”

Knowledge is power, and we need it now more than ever. Arm yourself with information, share it with others and keep your powder dry.

H/T Commenter Kathy

Cindy Hensley McCain’s misplaced sympathy

Dead APS customers have “impacted Don personally”

Cindy Hensley McCain has been moved to come to the defense of the Chairman of the Board and CEO of Arizona Public Service — a subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corp. — claiming authorship of a foolishly insulting ‘My Turn’ editorial in the failing Arizona Republic newspaper, her husband’s personal public relations vehicle.

What would cause her (or more likely a surrogate) to write, “Maligned Don Brandt of APS is a good and decent man”? She refers to him as “a community leader called to serve a greater good,” and, of course, drawing a parallel to her late husband, gifted deity status by the same newspaper. Brandt eulogized McCain during at least one of his three funerals, whose self-prepared guest list pointedly excluded President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania.

Acknowledging, “Donald Brandt, the head of APS, is a long, dear friend of John and mine,” and enumerating his many business awards, Hensley & Co. Anheuser-Busch beer heiress Cindy takes exception to the loud voices raised in protest of the utility’s policies that allowed electricity to be cut to the homes of elderly residents, resulting in gruesome heat-related deaths.

Responding to citizen outrage, Arizona Corporation Commission regulators recently imposed a summertime ban on disconnecting home customers following the latest such death of a Arizona Public Service Co. customer in Sun City West after her power was cut off for nonpayment of $51. The families of two other customers who similarly died have won undisclosed judgments against the utility.

Cindy‘s praise includes these inane words:

“And because I have seen Don’s kindness (during her husband‘s final illness), I know the recent tragedies that have befallen our community have impacted Don personally.

We all mourn the loss of life, and I hope he doesn’t mind my words on his behalf.”

After the deservedly bad press he’s been getting, “Don,” the exceedingly well compensated, high dollar donor to your husband’s campaigns and the McCain Institute, won’t mind a bit, Cindy.

SCOTUS delivers border wall win for Pres. Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court backed the Trump administration on Friday by lifting an impediment imposed by a lower court that had quashed plans to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for border wall construction — a key element of the president’s 2016 winning campaign.

The decision allows the administration to move forward with plans to construct the much needed border wall along major entry points used by illegal aliens.

Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted in support of the administration.

Liberal associate justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democrat appointees, dissented, with their cohort Justice Stephen Breyer issuing this split opinion, unable or unwilling to fully reach the right conclusion.

On February 19, the reliably leftist organizations American Civil Liberties Union and Sierra Club, filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s emergency powers declaration to secure funds to build the barrier along the southern border, after his efforts were stonewalled by congressional Democrats. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the Sierra Club and the illegal invasion supporting Southern Border Communities Coalition was filed in the Northern District of California.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the lower courts should not have halted construction of walls on the southern border,” Justice Department spokesperson Alexei Woltornist said in a statement. “We will continue to vigorously defend the Administration’s efforts to protect our Nation.”

The President tweeted:

Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2019

AZ Supreme Court: Judiciary by mob rule? Let’s hope not & Update

ACLU thugs stage rowdy street protest against stellar AZ Supreme Court applicant

Today the state Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will interview nine applicants vying to fill a vacancy on the Arizona Supreme Court brought about by the retirement of Justice Scott Bales 

Filling judicial vacancies on the participating trial courts, both divisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is usually a dignified, orderly procedure, following constitutional guidelines. The 16-member commissions include both public and attorney members, representing various political parties and on the appellate level, diverse counties. They vet the applicants and select those they will interview. Following the interviews, commissions are constitutionally mandated to send a list of not more than two-thirds of one political party to the governor who makes the final selection.

Among the current supreme court applicants (read their applications), Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, a West Point graduate and military officer has a background that, to most observers, would appear stellar. This is not intended to diminish other applicants, but to point to his prominence bringing out the rowdy protesters. The left-wing Arizona Republic newspaper described the repeatedly elected Montgomery as a “controversial Republican leader,” conveniently omitting how he excelled despite family adversity, graduated law school with high honors and rose to lead an esteemed prosecutor’s office with over 1,000 employees, managing a budget of approximately $100 million, while contributing time to community activities and raising a family.

He was recently the subject of a raucous ACLU-led mob of thugs assembled outside his office, yelling, “Block Bill! Block Bill!,” taking him to task for his views which are far more mainstream than theirs. A similar sized crowd of admirers held signs stating their support. Montgomery ably addresses his publicly stated views on issues that affect Arizonans on Question Number 29 of his application:

Describe any additional professional experience you would like to bring to the Commission’s attention: As a publicly elected official, I have had to ensure that the political dimensions of the Office never interfere with the obligation to seek justice in all the matters that Arizona law requires me to address. While I may engage in debate over various public policy matters that intersect with the duties and responsibilities of the office I serve in, I have never let politics affect the decisions I have to make. First and foremost in my mind is the constant realization that I have to set an example for the men and women of the Office. If I am to expect civil attorneys and prosecutors to base their decisions on objective information and argue from facts, then I must do the same. The approach to deciding cases of statewide impact for a Supreme Court Justice reflects a similar reality. While controversy may swirl about a pending case, the members of the Court must stay focused on the matter before them and on the facts and the law to be applied. Additionally, I have experienced the necessity for ignoring the political rhetoric that often flows from advocating for a position different than that of various special interest groups, whether it involves criminal justice policy or ballot initiatives.  I have the practical experience of not letting political differences interfere with my obligation to work with fellow county officials or with fellow criminal justice system stakeholders in Maricopa County, independent of political affiliation or their side of an issue.  While high volume criticism, regardless of the justification or lack thereof, may be a part of the political dimension of the job, I have never let it define how I work to maintain the public’s confidence in our civil, criminal, and juvenile justice systems. This understanding of the nature of my position and the work I have engaged in over the last eight plus years gives me a greater sensitivity for the apolitical nature of the judiciary and the fact that the public policy matters I have engaged in are for the Executive and Legislative branches.  In order to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and to serve honorably as an Arizona Supreme Court Justice, I recognize I must forego all such activity and I actually look forward to pursuing a new challenge in doing so.

Arizonans would be well represented having a man of Montgomery’s background and caliber selected for the high court. Caving to the loudest, contrived voices is not a recipe for excellence. Thuggery should not be a factor in deciding who sits on Arizona’s Supreme Court.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery was on the list of seven applicants sent to Gov. Doug Ducey, following a 10-2 vote. Chief Justice Robert Brutinel, who chaired the commission, chose to abstain from balloting. The other finalists are:

Sean Brearcliffe, (Republican) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

Kent Cattani, (Republican) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

Maria Elena Cruz, (Democrat) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

David Euchner, (Libertarian) a Pima County Public Defender.

Randall Howe, (Republican) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

Andrew Jacobs, (Democrat) a partner at Snell & Wilmer law firm.

Mueller sham investigation, “doddering” testimony exposed

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway has likely written the best assessment of Robert Mueller’s difficult to watch testimony, intended to bring President Trump to the gates of political hell. Instead, it elicited unexpected feelings of sympathy for frail, former FBI director, Mueller, described as “doddering.”

Not only is it a miserable end to a lofty career, but there is the impossible to forget spectacle of a less than mentally alert, ashen and disconnected man, repeatedly asking for simple sentences to be repeated, that will provide the indelibly etched memory superseding any previous accomplishments.

Mueller’s obvious decline appears to have self-written Hemingway’s headline, “Mueller doddering raises many questions about who precisely was running investigation.”

These not widely reported facts emerge in her commentary:

“What I don’t think anybody expected was Mueller would present himself as doddering, as lacking command of anything to do with the election and thereby raising a whole host of questions about who actually was in charge of this Mueller investigation. A lot of people just gave it leeway because they respected him and seeing today I don’t think anyone thinks he was in charge. It had been previously reported that 13 of his 17 associates were Democrats, 0 were Republicans. Nine were Democratic donors; six were Hillary Clinton donors. Some were pretty close allies of the Clintons. One attended a Hillary Clinton election rally. So what I think you’re going to start seeing many more questions about precisely who was running this investigation and to what end? …

The big change I think is there were Republicans who really did trust the Mueller investigation on the grounds that Robert Mueller was running it alone. He was the only Republican affiliated with it and he apparently had no idea what was going on. So I think you’re going to see some people, you’re going to see an increase in ranks of people who think that maybe the investigation was not handled properly and there were deep problems with it.”

An impossible to argue with assessment, Mrs. Hemingway.

Weak Mueller fails to make Dems’ impeachment case

Watch as former Special Counsel Robert Mueller sets the stage for President Trump’s impeachment…that is, if can even remember who Donald Trump is.

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel released the following statement in response to Mueller’s embarrassing testimony, succinctly summing up the Democrats’ bad day:

“Today’s hearings were a disaster for Democrats. After three years, millions of taxpayer dollars and countless lies from Democrats, Mueller just reaffirmed what we’ve known all along: There was no collusion and no obstruction. Case closed.”

On July 12, at his request, Mueller’s public testimony was delayed an additional week to July 24 to give him time to prepare.  He could have used an additional year.

H/T Grabien video

Judicial Watch files ethics complaint against Rep. Ilhan Omar

This letter containing an ethics complaint, delivered to David Skaggs, chairman of the Office of Congressional Ethics in the U.S. House of Representatives from Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, details what is described as:

“Substantial, compelling and, to date, unrefuted evidence [that] has been uncovered revealing Rep. Ilhan Omar may have committed the following crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law: perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, and federal student loan fraud.”

Omar, a Somali immigrant and radical Islamic activist, has even been accused of marrying her own brother in order to facilitate his emigration to the United States from the United Kingdom.

Fitton writes, “In the words of investigative reporter David Steinberg: “The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American History.”

The evidence developed against Rep. Omar was the result of a three-year long investigation in both the United States and the United Kingdom by investigator David Steinberg and his investigative reporter colleagues Preya Samsundar and Scott Johnson.

The letter concludes by requesting the Office of Congressional Ethics to launch an immediate investigation into Rep. Omar’s conduct.

Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is one of the radical congressional freshmen members of the self-anointed “Squad,” notable for their vile race-based hatred and anti-Semitism which Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is incapable of reining in, as noted by Matt Vespa in his Townhall expose.

Joel B. Pollak, writing for Breitbart News, exposes the contemptible quartet which also includes U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).

Elections have consequences. We urge you to read the linked articles to build your information arsenal.

Dying AZ Republic begs for subscribers with last gasps

…as it continues to insult its few remaining readers

To be charitable, it must take more than a small amount of grit to admit that you are looking doom in the eye. Still, it’s not easy to be benevolent to an entity that is responsible for waging war on people and issues that exemplify the best our state and nation have to offer.

Reading the pathetic plea for new subscribers by Greg Burton, the Arizona Republic’s newly hired executive editor, evoked feelings akin to watching a fly trying to wrangle its way out of a sticky spider’s web. The onlooker knows full well the imminent future in store for the fly, but it remains impossible to overt one‘s eyes. And after the cruel fate being historically replicated, its difficult not to wonder why the fly went to its demise without learning to avoid the trap.

The Hillary-endorsing newspaper, ignoring her lies and scandals, has waged relentless, multi-pronged attacks on President Donald Trump, either forgetting or determining as irrelevant, that he won all of Arizona’s electoral votes. If not blinded by rabid anti-Trumpism, his popularity would not have been difficult to discern based solely on the massive and exuberant turnout at his Arizona rallies.

In his short tenure, this is not Greg Burton’s first bite at the begging-for-subscribers apple. Earlier this month he began his plea by extolling the gender and ethnic diversity in the newsroom, as if such factors determine excellence. His offensive premise is only “people of color” can relate to “other people of color.”

He wrote, “We’ve dedicated ourselves to improving diversity as we recruit and retool. In 2018 and 2019, we rebuilt the newsroom to 30% people of color. As I write this, we’re at 31%.”

Following that brilliance to its logical conclusion, as an imperfect white male, Burton should be jobless again in record time.

His most recent plea actually states:

“At every point, journalists on assignment for The Arizona Republic stood on the shoulders of subscribers. That’s where we stand today. In return, our promise is to chronicle the best of Arizona, expose the worst and deeply examine the issues that matter most to you.

The future of our business depends on more than casual readers, though – we need loyal, paying subscribers to continue our mission.

To reward that commitment to our journalism, we’re rolling out a new program this week in which we publish a portion of our work exclusively for subscribers.”

Translated, Burton’s promise to “expose the worst,” means the newspaper will continue to brutalize President Trump and endorse Democrats for state and county offices.

For these ongoing insults and its vow to “continue to investigate police shootings” —  as if police are marauding gang members, rather than public protectors — the aptly nicknamed Arizona Repulsive continually hikes its subscription rates, while delivering fewer pages and content written by ASU student interns lacking editors. They are taught early on that the politically correct words “immigrant” or “undocumented immigrant” should be applied to illegal aliens. The U.S. Supreme Court, which has decided numerous cases involving federal immigration law, uses the correct, precise legal term “illegal alien,” as noted by Hans von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow with the Heritage Foundation.

In a nod to its aging readers, today’s edition of the emaciated daily — in both size and content —  has seven full page ads for hearing aids. It also engages in propagandizing them, as in a column today in which the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen refers to President Trump using these incendiary words: “He is the most un-American of all American presidents, a boorish man who has erased the distance between the mob and the speaker. He is both at the same time.”

 Is it any wonder the newspaper is dying?