Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: U.S. And International Politics  (Read 885037 times)

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: U.S. And International Politics
« Reply #805 on: June 26, 2022, 11:00:21 AM »
$80 million dark money group tied to Trump Supreme Court advisor, Leonard Leo

October 23, 2020



A close informal advisor to President Trump who has been deeply involved in all three of his Supreme Court nomination battles is the sole trustee of a mysterious group that brought in more than $80 million in 2018, according to a previously unreported tax return uncovered by CREW. The filing vastly expands the amount of money known to be flowing into the growing constellation of dark money groups tied to Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo and provides new details about his role in a secretive firm that was responsible for one of the largest donations received by President Trump’s inaugural committee.

What makes Rule of Law Trust (RLT) particularly interesting is that despite its $80 million haul, the group seems remarkably hollow. It claimed it had no employees and no volunteers in its first year and listed what appears to be a virtual office in Virginia as its main address. Its stated mission is “to advance conservative principles and causes through communications, research, strategy and assistance to other organizations,” but there’s no apparent public information to demonstrate what that work entails, not even a website.

In an unusual financial arrangement, the group also appears to have channeled nearly all of its $2.7 million in expenditures through the BH Group — an enigmatic firm that, the filing reveals, is partly owned by Leo. The company has long been known to be tied to Leo, but the nature of his role was unknown until now. Just months after it was formed in 2016, the BH Group gave $1 million to President Trump’s inaugural committee — though the only known funds that it has received during that time came from other dark money groups allied with Leo. The ultimate source of the money remains unknown to this day.

“The filing vastly expands the amount of money known to be flowing into the growing constellation of dark money groups tied to Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo.”

The only other people linked to RLT in the sparse filing are either longtime Federalist Society officials-turned-consultants like Leo, or operatives with a long history working behind the scenes on dark money groups tied to Leo. For example, RLT’s single largest payment in 2018 was a $1.5 million consulting fee paid to Jonathan Bunch, a former vice president of the Federalist Society who has been involved in a number of entities tied to Leo. Bunch is now the president of CRC Advisors, a firm formed by Leo this past January. RLT paid an additional $300,004 to a firm called YAS, LLC for consulting. According to DC government records, the firm is registered to Maria Marshall, a former director of operations at the Federalist Society who currently serves as the vice president of CRC Advisors.

The records for RLT are maintained by Neil Corkery — who, along with his wife, Ann, is a longtime ally of Leo’s and has been tied to some of the largest conservative dark money groups in the country for more than a decade. Neil Corkery’s most notable connection is to two groups called the Wellspring Committee and Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), both 501(c)(4) social welfare groups like RLT. For ten years, from 2008 until its termination in 2018, Wellspring served as little more than a passthrough for anonymous money into politically active nonprofits that spent tens of millions of dollars on elections around the country and, in the case of JCN, judicial nominations. Leo has never personally held a formal position at either group, but he is reportedly closely involved in the fundraising for both groups.

As of last year, JCN operated out of an office on the same hallway as the Federalist Society in downtown Washington, DC. For years, JCN has been funded almost entirely by the Wellspring Committee —  which was in turn funded by massive seven- and eight-figure contributions from anonymous donors. In 2016, JCN spent millions to pressure senators to not consider President Obama’s last Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. The following year, it poured millions into the fight to confirm President Trump’s first nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch, to fill the same seat on the bench. The group’s president, Carrie Severino, tweeted a picture from Gorsuch’s swearing-in in the White House Rose Garden.

In 2018, the cycle repeated for Justice Kavanaugh’s nomination, and now JCN is pouring millions into the fight to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat opened by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Throughout these confirmation contests, Wellspring and JCN have funneled millions of dollars into the BH Group. Leo’s ties to the firm were first identified after he listed it as his employer on a contribution reported to the Federal Election Commission, but the nature of his role in the BH Group has been unclear for years. The Rule of Law Trust filing offers some new details, though. In a note buried deep in the return, RLT reports having reimbursed the BH Group for more than $4.3 million in expenditures that it describes as “independent contractor expenses incurred on behalf of Rule of Law Trust” and notes that BH Group is “more than 35% owned by Leonard Leo.”



But even as the note provides new details, it raises new questions. In particular, it explains that the more than $2.7 million that RLT spent in 2018 was funneled through the BH Group. In other words, it appears that a firm partly owned by the sole trustee of RLT paid all of RLT’s expenses, including $1.8 million in consulting payments to two former Federalist Society associates who now work at a consulting firm founded by the trustee, and then RLT reimbursed that firm for the expenses. 

Another question looms even larger, though, stemming from the fact that RLT ended 2018 with more than $78.2 million on hand. What did it actually do with all its money? It’s not clear, and because of the lag in filings for nonprofit groups like this, no 2019 tax return is currently available. The group likely won’t file a 2020 tax return until late 2021. The same goes for the growing number of dark money groups tied to Leo in recent years.

A picture is emerging, but it will take years to sort out. One thing is clear, though: Leo and his allies have amassed a massive war chest of anonymous donations for their fight to remake the federal judiciary. 

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/80-million-dark-money-group-tied-to-trump-supreme-court-advisor-leonard-leo/

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: U.S. And International Politics
« Reply #806 on: June 27, 2022, 05:45:20 AM »
Endangered GOP lawmakers fleeing questions about destruction of Roe v. Wade: report

GOP lawmakers already facing an uphill battle as they seek re-election in November are now finding that their campaigns are being hampered by questions about their party's part in getting Roe v. Wade overturned by the conservative Supreme Court.

According to a report from Politico's Sarah Farris and Sally Mutnick, with most Republicans across the board praising the controversial ruling written by Justice Sam Alito, GOP lawmakers in battleground states are hoping the furor dies down before people vote later this year.

According to Politico, "as abortion rights remain highly popular with voters, including in swing districts, most of those vulnerable lawmakers were uninterested in discussing the particulars of what, if anything, should happen following the court’s Friday ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade."

Case in point, the report notes, is Rep. Peter Meijer (R-MI) who is being buffeted by attacks from Democrats and former president Donald Trump, and who gave a terse "No' when asked about codifying Roe v Wade before dashing onto the House floor.

"Democrats say that silence, or occasional deflection, is a telling sign that Republicans know abortion rights remain broadly popular with much of the electorate — and that the GOP will soon face the wrath of suburban and purple-district voters," Farris and Mutnik wrote. "Some Republicans, too, acknowledge that abortion rights polling generally favors the left. But they say voters are harder to pin down when it comes to 'late-term' abortion or 'heartbeat' bans — terms the GOP leveraged to define the debate in recent years as the religious right gained influence."

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) conceded that the issue could cripple his party in the midterms, telling Politico, “It may well hurt us in old Republican suburban strongholds, but those have been slipping away from us for a variety of reasons, gun control among them."

California Rep. David Valadao (R) also admitted it will be a problem for him while hedging on codifying Roe. "Obviously, I’m very pro-life. I’m going to continue to be. Probably the folks who would make a decision off of that, are probably folks that wouldn’t vote for me anyways.”

You can read more here:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/26/republicans-biden-abortion-roe-00042371

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: U.S. And International Politics
« Reply #807 on: June 27, 2022, 01:07:18 PM »
Crist calls for Kavanaugh, Gorsuch to be impeached over abortion ruling



(The Center Square) – Democratic Congressman Charlie Crist, the former Republican governor of Florida who’s running as a Democrat hoping to defeat incumbent Gov. Ron DeSantis in November, said Friday that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached if they lied under oath during their Senate confirmation hearings.

Crist's call comes after Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined in a majority U.S. Supreme Court ruling to overturn two landmark abortion cases – Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The decision returns decisions on the legality of abortion back to the states.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both Democrats, accused the conservative justices of lying without mentioning them by name.

“Today’s ruling makes clear that Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to Congress when they testified, under oath, that in their view Roe v. Wade was settled precedent,” Crist said in a Facebook post. “Perjury is a crime. If perjury is found to have occurred, the correct remedy is impeachment.”

He provided no evidence of either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh lying under oath.

In a joint statement, Pelosi and Schumer said in part, “Several of these conservative Justices, who are in no way accountable to the American people, have lied to the U.S. Senate, ripped up the Constitution and defiled both precedent and the Supreme Court’s reputation – all at the expense of tens of millions of women who could soon be stripped of their bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they’ve relied on for half a century.”

Three justices who voted to overturn Roe were appointed by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the U.S. Senate: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch, “refused to take a position on Roe,” NPR reports. During his confirmation hearing in 2017, Gorsuch replied to a question posed by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., saying he “would have walked out the door” if Trump had asked him to vote to overturn Roe, NPR points out.

In 2018, Kavanaugh said in his opening remarks that Roe had been “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court,” and was “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.”

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, was joined by the three justices appointed by Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts. Alito wrote: “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

He also argued, "a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions. On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973. ...

“Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.”

https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_news/crist-calls-for-kavanaugh-gorsuch-to-be-impeached-over-abortion-ruling/article_73614887-1ece-58d5-b353-388aad8bb3de.html

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: U.S. And International Politics
« Reply #808 on: June 28, 2022, 01:13:34 AM »
'She's a crook': GOP voters line up against indicted Colorado election denier running for secretary of state



According to a report from CNN, Republican voters in Colorado have become increasingly alarmed at the prospect that indicted 2020 presidential election denier and former county clerk Tina Peters could be their party's nominee for Secretary of State.

Peters, who was hit with 10 counts related to election equipment tampering by a grand jury -- and is affiliated with fellow election denier Mike Lindell -- is currently the GOP frontrunner for the job, and that has conservatives very worried.

As CNN's Eric Bradner reports, ".... in the county on Colorado's Western Slope where she is barred by a district judge from performing her election-oversight duties, many voters -- including some unaffiliated voters who typically back Democrats but had voted in this year's Republican primary because of Peters' presence on the ballot -- said they want to stop her."

According to one voter, Daria Kent of Grand Junction, "Yes, there was voter fraud. She caused it."

As Colorado Newsline previously reported, "Peters had been under investigation over allegedly enabling a security breach in the Mesa County elections system during a “trusted build” process, which involves a secure software update. She routinely spreads baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and that Colorado’s entire election system is insecure."

One Republican voter, 65-year-old Tammy Reece, cut right to the chase, telling CNN, "She's a crook and should not be running for secretary of state."

Her husband, Bob Reece, 75, concurred, saying, "The system did have a flaw. And that is, the very person who was supposed to protect it had the passwords to it, and opened it up."

He added, "I mean, it's been well-documented in the local paper about all the things that Peters has been accused of. And as the allegations go through court, it's going to be a continuum of decisions. ... I was shocked that she was running for any public office. You lose your job here, and you want the one above it?"

The CNN report adds, "Peters and her top deputy were indicted in March after an investigation by local authorities into a security breach that resulted in confidential voting machine logins, and forensic images of their hard drives, being published in a QAnon-affiliated Telegram channel in early August 2021. In May, after a lawsuit brought by Griswold, a district judge stripped Peters of her duties overseeing this year's elections in Mesa County."

You can read more here:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics/colorado-republican-secretary-of-state-primary-tina-peters/index.html

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: U.S. And International Politics
« Reply #809 on: June 28, 2022, 01:21:40 AM »
Colorado clerk charged with 10 voting crimes: Lauren Boebert “encouraged me” to breach voting system

Indicted Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters says Boebert “encouraged me to go forward" with breach attempt



A Colorado election clerk who was indicted on 10 criminal counts has said that Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) "encouraged" her to commit the alleged crimes.

In a report on Sunday, The New York Times recounted the "strange tale" of Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who has fueled right-wing conspiracy theories claiming the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

"Ms. Peters was indicted on 10 criminal counts related to the effort to copy voting equipment software, including attempting to influence a public servant, criminal impersonation, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, identity theft and first-degree official misconduct," the report explained.

On Friday, Peters deflected blame to Boebert, according to the report.

She said Boebert “encouraged me to go forward with the imaging” of voting machines.

But the lawmaker's spokesperson insisted that Peters' claim was false.

Boebert has previously released a statement in support of Peters.

"Many of the constituents I represent have expressed concern about the ongoing investigation into Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters," Boebert said in 2021. "As many of you know, I have been a vocal opponent of the overreach and targeted nature of the FBI’s activities on a national level."

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/27/colorado-clerk-charged-with-10-voting-lauren-boebert-encouraged-me-to-breach-voting-system_partner/

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: U.S. And International Politics
« Reply #810 on: June 28, 2022, 01:57:25 AM »
As I've said a couple of days ago, we no longer have a separation of church and state in the United States because of the far wing radicals on the Extreme Court.   

The Extreme Court just ruled 6-3 that public school teachers and other staff can now lead students in prayer, significantly undermining the separation of church and state and overturning decades of established precedence.

So, now teachers in public schools, and even the janitors, can openly assemble to pray in public schools.

Students in the classroom all follow different religions and some don't practice any religion at all. That's the reason why we don't have prayers in public schools because of all the different faiths or non religious students.   

What if the teacher is of a different religion than the rest of the class forcing their prayers on students? Why should students be forced to pray along to a religion they don't belong to?

What if a teacher worships Satan? Students will be forced to hear Satanic prayers in the classroom because of this asinine ruling by the Extreme Court.

You can't pick and choose which religious prayers can be in the school. So, now this opens a can of worms with any prayers being spoken out loud at school. And if the students in the class all have different religions and want to say prayers out loud, then students will be praying all day instead of learning.

Nobody should be forcing their religious beliefs on to other people  Even if you belong to the same religion, you wouldn't want to force your beliefs at school or on the football field. But this disastrous ruling by the radical Republican Extreme Court is forcing religion upon Americans.

What's even more outrageous is that African American NFL football players were crucified for taking a knee on the football field trying to bring awareness to police brutality against the African American community by Donald Trump, right wing politicians, the right wing media, and his cult followers  But these same hypocrites feel it's ok for players to take a knee in prayer. The radicsl right only believes the Constitution grants them their own rights to do what they want. When radical right has a problem when other people express their First Amendment rights, they will do everything to attack, censor, and silence their free speech.                 
         
The Constitution and separation of church and state no longer exists in the United States as the radical right has given a middle finger to our Founding Fathers ruling against our own Constitution.

Supreme Court says public school officials can pray openly
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/27/religion-prayer-public-school-supreme-court-ruling

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: U.S. And International Politics
« Reply #811 on: June 28, 2022, 02:03:38 AM »
Legal expert speculates whether Supreme Court will destroy Congress' new gun safety bill next



The House and Senate both passed a new bipartisan gun safety law, and while it was signed by the president and supported by two branches of government, there's a fear that the Supreme Court will attempt to overrule the law.

A Slate report expressed the concern on Monday after President Joe Biden signed the bill ahead of a G7 meeting. The question becomes whether one branch of government will attempt to go up against the other two.

Slate cited the majority opinion in Bruen saying that "[t]he constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”

"A primary example of a right the majority says has received appropriate respect is the right to free speech," the Slate report explained. "Throughout the opinion, Thomas says that the Second Amendment must receive the same due as the First. Thomas knows that the First Amendment does not provide unlimited protection to speech, that the state may regulate speech in all sorts of ways. So, he is not referencing First Amendment law to suggest that there are no limits on the right to keep and carry arms.

Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice, explained to MSNBC that the Supreme Court saying that states rights apply to an abortion but not to guns is a major issue for the Court.

"The two cases together say that some states can ban abortion but other states and they usually are other states, can't regulate guns and gun violence within their states," said Waldman. "It's a very different approach. The ruling struck down New York's law. A law that goes back to 1911. Saying that you can't carry a concealed handgun in New York City, in a crowded place like that. And it is the first time in a dozen years that the Supreme Court has made a major ruling on the Second Amendment since it first said, and it was only back then in 2008, in 2010, that you had an individual right at all to have a weapon."

"But what's really significant about this case is not just what it will do in New York where there will be more guns and more violence and more crime as is expected in New York. But what it does nationwide, what the Supreme Court said is effectively you can't actually take public safety into account when you're making these gun laws. You can only look at 'history and tradition.' And Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion, used the history very selectively, but what it means is that hundreds of gun laws that have been upheld by the courts, Republican and Democratic judges, federal and state judges over the last 12 years, hundreds of those laws now will get challenged by the NRA and others saying you can't read the history right."

Just last week, the bill that Congress signed was Constitutional, but the question is whether it is now.

"I think it's still constitutional now. obviously, they're going to have to take a look," said Waldman. "Much of that law involved spending money on things like mental health and other things that would not really I think by any sense fall afoul of the Second Amendment right, but there are some aspects to it such as red flag laws saying you can take people's guns away if they're a threat or have a violent mental health issue, and all also the things related to background checks that will be challenged."

"Again, I think it is quite clear that these laws respect individual rights and benefit public safety but it's a lot harder to know how courts and judges are supposed to scratch their heads and figure out this vague new standard. How do you find out what the history and tradition was way back in some imagined past time for these modern laws? It's not a way to run a railroad. It's not a way any other country that you know of makes decisions about protecting public safety."

See his full interview in link below:

https://www.rawstory.com/gun-safety-law-supreme-court/