The ideology of the Democratic Party has suffered greatly in the federal courts during the Biden term. Donald J. Trump appointed three Justice of the Supreme Court, and equally significant numbers of District and Circuit Appellate Judges. These appointments steered the federal courts toward greater (but not perfect) fidelity to the Constitution. As a result, the tension between the judiciary and the political branches (Executive and Legislative) of the federal government has never been greater. Not even Franklin D. Roosevelt attacked the judiciary as one Democratic Senator has just done. His measure stands little chance of passage. But his audacity to introduce it demonstrates why control of the United States Senate is a vital election stake.

Ron Wyden’s grievances against the federal courts

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced S. 5229, the “Judicial Modernization and Transparency Act,” last Wednesday (September 25). The full text of the bill is available only at Wyden’s “Web office,” but CNAV also hosts it here:

Sen. Wyden described his bill in a press release, and one can follow its progress at GovTrack.us and Congress.gov. In his press release, the Senator mentions “ recent rulings upending decades of precedent and evidence of unethical behavior.” Those recent rulings include every ruling that has blocked favorite Democratic Party nostrums, including without limits:

• Abortion, particularly abortion on demand for any reason or no reason,

• Gun control, especially what constitutes a “machine gun” under current law,

• Censorship under color of apparently unrelated law,

• Exclusion of God from the public square and especially in schools (see here and here),

• The unlimited power of the Administrative State, and especially the “Chevron Deference Doctrine,”

• Enforced acceptance and even celebration of Alphabet Soup and similar alternative lifestyles, and

• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), once known as “affirmative action,” in college admissions.

The Court also blocked the administration from unilaterally forcing taxpayers to assume student loan repayment burdens. But what especially rankles with Sen. Wyden were the Court’s decisions to:

• Limit the applicability of a financial-records destruction statute to charges relating to the January 6 Event, and to:

• Define and delineate Presidential immunity from prosecution for certain classes of his acts.

Not all rulings would have displeased the Democrats

Not all Supreme Court decisions displeased Sen. Wyden. For instance, he said nothing about the Supreme Court vacating an injunction against social media acting as State actors. Separately, Justice Clarence Thomas remonstrated with his colleagues for magically thinking a law could substitute for a target acquiring and using the means of self-defense.

But that’s not good enough for Sen. Wyden. Among other things, he seems to feel that Congress should have enhanced authority to rewrite the Constitution. Furthermore, by “rulings” he includes those from District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals – especially the Fifth Circuit.

He also has taken up the refrain of Democrats and their allied think tanks, against at least two Justices. Justice Thomas they attack by association with his wife, Virginia Lamp Thomas, and some of her affiliations. Those same detractors attack Justice Samuel A. Alito for flying flags indicating the distress of the United States, and a call for return to the values that informed the American War for Independence. The Democrats seem to feel that this makes the Court no longer neutral. In essence they feel that values inimical to the Constitution are just as legitimate as values friendly to it. Nor can they amend the Constitution, nor remove Thomas and Alito JJ through impeachment, because they lack adequate support. So – with Sen. Wyden currently leading them – they are trying the next best thing.

Remaking the Supreme and other federal courts in the Democrats’ image

The text of S. 5229 is impossible to read without reference to Title 28 of the United States Code. That Title deals with the composition and organization of the Supreme and other federal courts. Chapter 1 covers the Supreme Court, and Chapter 3 covers the Courts of Appeals.

The Wyden bill increases the full membership of the Supreme Court from 9 to 15, and resets the quorum level from 6 to 8. The next sections will create confusion. Presidents shall appoint one new Justice in the first 120 days of the first and third years of their terms. But the bill also provides that Presidents shall nominate Justices to fill vacancies on the Court.

What is a vacancy, and how does a vacancy differ from the “general” condition? No doubt Sen. Wyden will argue that the creation of a new seat on the Court, by his bill or by any future legislation, shall not constitute a “vacancy” allowing of immediate filling. A vacancy would then mean “in case of the removal of a Justice of the Supreme Court from the bench, or of his death or resignation.” But the bill does not say that. CNAV finds this language deceptive, and holds that it allows Presidents to appoint new Justices at once. Whether to replace a removed, dead, or resigned Justice, or to fill a legislatively created seat, would constitute a vacancy. So any determined President would argue.

Forcing the Senate’s hand, and tax audits

In light of the Senate’s sensible decision not to act on the nomination of Merrick Garland, the Wyden bill would force the Senate to act. To do that, his bill would automatically discharge a held-up nomination out of Committee and to the Senate floor. Technically, the nomination would go onto the calendar – perhaps subject to manipulation by Senate Leadership. Tellingly, this would not apply to the nomination of any judge lower than a Justice of the Supreme Court.

What would apply, is an automatic income tax audit by the Internal Revenue Service. Furthermore, Justice candidates would have to disclose three years’ worth of tax returns. By far this constitutes the bulk of the text, covering all possible exceptions and contingencies.

Forcing disclosure of Supreme Court votes

As arrogant as this is, this bill would directly change the Rules of the Supreme Court with regard to:

• Motions for recusal by reason of prior association with a party or for other reasons, and

• Votes in conference on every matter relevant to any given case.

Normally the Court discloses the votes of Justices only in decisions in the cases they accept for review. One infers those votes by tallying majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and joinders of such opinions. In addition, any Justice may, if he wishes, disclose his dissenting vote in proceedings other than review decisions. This includes decisions to grant or deny review petitions, and applications for injunctions, stays of injunctions, stays of executions, etc. But under the Wyden bill, every vote in every case would be subject to a detailed vote tally disclosure. Compelling that kind of disclosure can have one purpose only: to influence Court decision making. That directly violates existing criminal law about trying to influence the course of justice.

The Wyden Bill also would require supermajorities to invalidate any Act of Congress on Constitutional grounds. Presently, simple majorities of any three-judge panel, a full appellate court rehearing a case en banc, or the Supreme Court can suffice. The Wyden Bill would now require:

• Unanimous panel decisions, and

• Two-thirds supermajorities of the Supreme Court or a Court of Appeals sitting en banc.

That way lies informal, gradual, and no less permanent amendment of the Constitution.

Changing the Courts of Appeals

Presently the federal courts include thirteen Courts of Appeals, for eleven regional circuits and two special federal government circuits. The current composition of the circuits is:

The thirteen judicial circuits of the United States are constituted as follows:

The Wyden Bill would plump this number out to fifteen, so that one Jusice could oversee one Circuit. Perhaps the Chief Justice would supervise the District of Columbia Circuit, but who knows who would supervise the Federal Circuit? But Wyden also proposes to change the compositions of the numbered regional circuits radically.

New circuits for the federal courts

Part of the purpose is to create fifteen circuits instead of the thirteen listed above. That alone would require splitting some circuits. But Wyden also seeks to break the power of some circuits by reconfiguring them. The new table would read:

Texas would now have to contend with ultra-liberal New Mexico instead of reasonably conservative Louisiana. Alaska, Idaho, Montana and Nevada would exchange one albatross (San Francisco, California) for another (Portland, Oregon, perhaps).

Finally, Wyden seeks to plump out the federal courts with a hundred additional District Judges. The text of his bill says nothing about creating new Districts. But of course creating two new numbered regional circuits would create new appellate circuit judgeships. Wyden also proposes adding several circuit judges to most circuits.

The most dangerous change to the federal courts

By far the most dangerous change to the federal courts, that affects the balance of power in the judiciary, is the new Paragraph (c) of 28 U.S.C. Section 42. Presently that section has two paragraphs, currently not designated. Wyden would designate those paragraphs as (a) and (b). Paragraph (b) would specify one Justice for one circuit, as above. Paragraph (c) would add new powers and duties to a supervising “circuit Justice” as follows:

(c) A circuit justice may—

(1) prioritize applications to justices; and

(2) participate in committees to prepare for the Judicial Conference of the United States;

(3) attend the Judicial Conference of the United States; and

(4) provide advice on the removal of a circuit judge in the circuit to which the circuit justice is assigned.

This would give memberships in the Judicial Conference to all Supreme Court Justices, not the Chief Justice alone. Currently the Judicial Conference consists of:

• The Chief Justice,

• Chief judges of all circuits,

• The chief judge of the Court of International Trade, and

• One district judge from each numbered regional circuit.

Changing the composition of the Judicial Conference can only be some kind of power play; CNAV is not sure what.

Affecting the balance of power

More to the point: currently, circuit Justices simply forward applications for injunctions/stays to the Court without comment. This would let Justices hold certain applications up as they see fit. The Justice also gains the power to advise removing someone from the Court of Appeals. That can have one purpose only: to change the composition of the Courts of Appeals other than through Congressional impeachment.

All these changes would significantly change the balance of power in the federal courts. The Supreme Court would become far more powerful than Congress has heretofore intended. It would even have the power, however indirect, to remove existing circuit judges.

Wyden would also create over a hundred additional District judgeships. Tellingly, he does not stagger the appointments of these new judges, or of new circuit judges either. And again, “what constitutes a vacancy at the Supreme Court” would be subject to argument.

Reaction

Mike LaChance at The Gateway Pundit published a scathing account of the new bill last night (September 27). He correctly noted the scheme to enlarge the Supreme Court – though he missed the significance of the bill’s Vacancy clause. Nor did he mention that The Washington Post made the same mistake he made:

The bill’s most significant measure would increase the number of justices from nine to 15 over the course of 12 years. The staggered format over two or three administrations is aimed at diminishing the chance that one political party would pack the courts with its nominees.

Yes, but! What constitutes a vacancy? Wyden’s bill doesn’t say. The Post did mention the concurrent expansion of the District and Appellate Circuit Benches.

Carrie Severino of Judicial Network left a long-form post on X expressing her displeasure:

🚨With 40 days until Election Day, Democrats just rolled out the most radical and dangerous legislation to date aimed at destroying the Supreme Court as we know it. The new radical bill put forward by Senate Democrats is the worst attack on the Court since FDR. It will:

❌Pack the Supreme Court with 6 more justices.

❌Harass the justices with mandatory yearly IRS audits.

❌Require a ruling by two-thirds of the Supreme Court and the circuit courts of appeals to overturn a law passed by Congress rather than a simple Court majority.

❌Expand the number of federal judicial circuits from 13 to 15 — adding more than 100 district court judges and more than 60 appellate-level judges — so Democrats can stack the federal bench with more unfit radicals.

❌Weaken the Senate’s power of advice and consent by requiring Supreme Court nominees to be automatically scheduled for a vote if their nominations stall in committee.

https://x.com/JCNSeverino/status/1839369331664130533

Ms. Severino then names four Democratic Senators up for reelection in swing States. They are Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

GovTrack.us gives this bill a two percent chance of passage in the current term of Congress. But it puts the Democrats on record for a shameless attempt to make the federal courts dance to their tune. Which goes to show that Senate elections, not only Presidential elections, have consequences.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2024/09/28/foundation/constitution/federal-courts-democratic-remake/

Video:

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) “Web office”:

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/

S. 5229:

Text:

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/judicial_modernization_and_transparency_act.pdf

Wyden’s press release:

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-introduces-sweeping-court-reforms-to-restore-public-trust-as-supreme-court-faces-legitimacy-crisis

Profile at GovTrack.us:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/s5229

Profile at Congress.gov:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/5229

Title 28 USC:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title28/html/USCODE-2011-title28.htm

Official description of the Judicial Conference of the United States:

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/governance-judicial-conference/about-judicial-conference

Mike LaChance’ article:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/09/it-begins-democrat-senator-ron-wyden-oregon-pushes/

Washington Post article (per the Wayback Machine, thus avoiding the paywall):

https://web.archive.org/web/20240927035126/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/26/supreme-court-reform-15-justices-wyden/

Carrie Severino’s post:

https://x.com/JCNSeverino/status/1839369331664130533

Declarations of Truth X feed:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

An astonishing development took place yesterday in the checkered history of Meta, Inc., owners of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Four weeks ago, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, abruptly confessed to the censorship his platforms practiced for years. Now The New York Times reports that he has hired a Republican “strategist” and plans to disengage from politics completely. Reactions to his apparent “rebranding” very from skepticism to open scorn. But that he would even attempt such “rebranding” shows that the “nationalist populism” of Donald J. Trump is more powerful than anyone has yet realized.

Recent moves by Zuckerberg

Nearly a month ago, Zuckerberg confessed his sins of censorship, false witness, and interference with business relationships. He set forth details in a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1828201780544504064

Specifically he confessed to censorship of the Hunter Biden Laptop story and two aspects of the coronavirus “pandemic”:

• Exaggeration of the harms from coronavirus infection, especially to those not suffering from chronic illnesses, and

• Denial or minimization of the harm from coronavirus vaccines.

Zuckerberg did not discuss his censorship of theories on the origin of coronavirus. Anyone challenging the official Wet Market Theory could expect content takedowns, shadow bans, “Facebook jail,” or ejection from Meta platforms. But he did discuss his “Zuckerbucks” program of financial support for local voter registration and elections offices. While not admitting any bias in such contributions or other wrongdoing, he announced suspension of the program.

In that letter he specifically accused the Biden administration of coercing him to do the censorship. But he did not and could not accuse the government of compelling him to make those “Zuckerbucks” contributions. Under no legal theory could he have claimed that excuse. That would constitute a taking of private property for public use without compensation, in violation of Amendment V. Which reads in relevant part:

[P]rivate property shall [not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Reaction

Two weeks later, Rebecca Friedrichs, a conservative education activist, had two words to say to Zuckerberg: “Prove it!” In her essay on RealClearPolitics, she described her own shadowbanning, on Facebook and Twitter (now known as X). She also charged that she lost her personal Facebook page the day after Rep. Jordan released Zuckerberg’s letter. More to the point, Ms. Friedrichs described the damage by Meta’s Trust and Safety Teams, and those of other platforms:

• Deaths of patients suffering chronic illnesses, deaths which coronavirus infection precipitated, because hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were unavailable or forbidden.

• Deaths and complications from “vaccines” issued under Emergency Use Authorizations, “vaccines” now shown to provide no benefit.

• Election interference, in that many blithely voted for Biden, believing that the Hunter Biden Laptop was a Russian disinformation trick.

• Children losing two years of learning because schools closed when they could have opened.

• Sexualization of children – and either their grooming into “transitioning,” or violent acts that “transitioned” students perpetrated on fellow students.

Skeptics on X directed their fire in equal measure at Zuckerberg and Rep. Jordan. All wanted to know what, if anything, Jordan or Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), Speaker of the Housse, would do next.

Meanwhile, the case of Missouri v. Biden is back before Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Facebook’s activities have figured prominently in that case – and now the government has filed another motion to dismiss.

The New York Times piece

Theodore Schleifer and Mike Isaac of The New York Times published their piece two nights ago, and updated it yesterday. Anyone writing for an organ like The New York Times, necessarily writes from a leftist perspective. Their article does not suggest that Mark Zuckerberg has turned conservative. Rather, they suggest he no longerr wants to play the high-stakes political games he once played. Republicans despise him for his injuries to them, and Democrats, having used him, have hung him out to dry. So now he wants, Pilate-like, to wash his hands of these affairs.

Citing anonymous sources within Meta, Schleifer and Isaac say Zuckerberg really has suspended all partisan programs. Likewise he has started moving against overt political activism at Meta. But those sources likely represent troublemakers at Trust and Safety who either didn’t get The Memo, or tore it up when they did get it. That would explain Rebecca Friedrichs’ continued shadowbanning and other difficulties.

Schleifer and Isaac suggest that Zuckerberg and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan, have had some shocking experiences lately. Those shocks might have soured them on the “far-left progressivism” they once embraced, or at least publicly nodded to. The outbreak of antisemitism on campus after the Fourth Arab-Israeli War began, seems to have been the strongest shock of all.

Zuckerberg finds out how leftists eat their own

Schliefer and Isaac lay out the eleven years of involvement by Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan in leftist politics. It began with Fwd.US, an organization dedicated to obtaining citizenship for “undocumented immigrants” – meaning citizenship for anyone who asked. Two years later they founded the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, dedicated to

an egalitarian world where they could “eliminate poverty and hunger,” “provide everyone with basic health care” and “nurture peaceful and understanding relationships between people of all nations.”

Schleifer and Isaac don’t want to admit it, but the election of Donald Trump in 2016 planted the seeds of what became civil war at Facebook/Meta and CZI. According to them, Zuckerberg took seriously, and to heart, accusations that Russians were using Facebook for their own ends. It caused him to wonder whether the political acts at CZI were doing any good. Then in the Long Hot Summer of 2020, a CZI employee openly told him to resign. At issue were Donald Trump’s statements on policy and other matters.

Then came the Zuckerbucks Affair – the Center for Technology and Civic Life. $400 million flowed into the coffers of that organization. It was supposed to go for increased voter safety during a “pandemic” whose dangers were exaggerated (see above). It ended up going to highly dubious projects like a Mobile Voter Registration and Voting Precinct that served Democrat areas only in Racine, Wisconsin. Elon Musk famously heaped scorn on Zuckerberg over this:

Funny you should mention “properly-run” social networks. Are you aware that Mark Zuckerberg, presumably a “proper-runner” of social networks, funded illegal voting vans in the last election?

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1745921308943069202

Schliefer and Isaac make one revelation that seems incredible enough to doubt its authenticity:

In late 2022, Lori Goler, Meta’s head of human resources, introduced a new internal policy called “community engagement expectations,” according to a copy of the memo reviewed by The Times. It forbade employees from raising in the workplace issues such as abortion, racial justice movements and wars. Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s chief technology officer, championed the policy and was supported by Mr. Zuckerberg, two people familiar with the matter said.

Now, wait a minute…!

The persistence of politically motivated censorship, in light of that statement, begs explanation. And did the CEO really hire Brian Baker, “Republican strategist,” a scant days after the Zuckerbuck affair blew up? If so, where has Baker been all these years? Schliefer and Isaac credit Baker with assuring Donald Trump that no more Zuckerbucks will flow. Of course, he said that publicly to Chairman Jordan. And did Baker have nothing to say about the takedown of pictures of Trump raising his fist at Butler, Pennsylvania? In fact, those who didn’t read the Times piece, all missed how long Baker has been with Meta. Posts yesterday – like these two – suggest that Baker is a recent hire. But the Zuckerbucks Blow-up happened years ago.

https://x.com/AFpost/status/1838879552837222788

https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1838966484820709806

About those “libertarian” politics: no one, who wants anything to do with “social justice reforms,” can call himself a libertarian. Libertarians believe in freedom of association, and freedom of philanthropy. To a libertarian, taxes should never support philanthropy or anything like it. Social-justice policy violates all these principles.

Furthermore, Schliefer and Isaac paint a picture of a company, and an associated charitable foundation, in civil war. If so, expect Vanguard to get involved.

Role of institutional investors – and Missouri plaintiffs

Vanguard, like BlackRock, is an “institutional investor,” and owns the biggest stake in Meta. Vanguard also shares Deep State, one-world, and depopulation ideology with BlackRock. Meta’s “dual-class share system” might enable him to stiff-arm Vanguard – and Fidelity, the other institutional investor. Maybe. Or maybe the head of Vanguard will pay Zuckerberg an unfriendly visit and (with apologies to Mario Puzo) “make [Zuck] an offer he can’t refuse.”

Jim Hoft, founder and head of The Gateway Pundit, is coldly furious with what he considers “slick rebranding” at Meta. Because he is a plaintiff in Missouri v. Biden, no one can expect him to credit Meta with lasting change. “Political theater!” he says. Hoft probably hasn’t read the Times piece intensively – because if he had, he’d heap even more scorn on that company. As it is, Hoft correctly observes that:

Meta’s track record speaks for itself: censorship, suppression, and manipulation of public discourse. Whether it’s silencing conservative voices or pandering to the progressive elite, Zuckerberg’s totalitarian control over information is a grave threat to the very fabric of free speech and democracy. We must not allow his slick rebranding to fool us into complacency.

Of course, that suggests that the Missouri plaintiffs should have sued Facebook and the other social media, not the government. Remember: organs like Gab and Rumble have told governments everywhere where they can put their demands for censorship. Mark Zuckerberg was a willing participant, at least until the New Persian Empire – Iran and its surrogates – carried their war against the Jews to American soil. Even now, “Republican strategist” Baker is at Meta for window dressing – after all, he’s been there practically since Missouri v. Biden began.

Plus ça change, plus ça reste.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2024/09/26/news/zuckerberg-mark-turned/

Video:

Zuckerberg’s confession letter:

https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1828201780544504064

The New York Times piece:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/24/technology/mark-zuckerberg-trump-politics.html

Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative “Letter to Max”

https://chanzuckerberg.com/about/letter-to-max/

Elon Musk’s post about the Mobile Voter Registration and Voting Precinct in Racine, Wisc.:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1745921308943069202

Posts about the hiring of Brian Baker:

https://x.com/AFpost/status/1838879552837222788

https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1838966484820709806

Declarations of Truth X feed:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

The last twenty-four hours have seen yet another “dire warning” that Donald Trump will do dictatorial things. This time, his former attorney, Michael Cohen, repeats a refrain he has sounded for four years. Now he says he will leave the United States and create a new identity if Trump wins this election. On one hand, his message joins a long line of rumors of celebrities saying they will leave the country. On the other, this is the most ridiculous – and detailed – exercise in projection in the history of American politics. For that reason alone, it is worth examining in detail, because we have the message in his own words.

What Michael Cohen has said about Donald Trump

Ben Kew at The Gateway Pundit has followed Michael Cohen’s often unhinged interviews since last June at least. Kew provided one report on June 8, and another last night (September 25). Each report features an interview Cohen gave to MSNBC.

On June 8, Cohen sat with MSNBC Anchor Ali Velshi for fifteen minutes, to discuss alleged threats of retribution by Trump against his political enemies. Cohen actually said Trump would order execution by defenestration if he won. Mr. Kew excerpted the transcript thus:

State-sponsored news just like what you have in Russia and their station which is called Pravda and means truth which is ironic, right? All of this goes away under a Donald Trump administration. Why? Because he doesn’t want to hear anything negative being said about him. The fact that you have this television show, the fact that you have the ability to speak truth to power, all of that goes away if in fact this man into becoming president.

All of these people whether it is Marco Rubio, Mike Johnson, Mark Meadows have all said disparaging things about Donald Trump at one point in time. they believe that if Donald Trump wins and they are shoulder to shoulder with him, that they will have unlimited power which would of course give them the ability to have unlimited resources and assets. One mistake that they are making, Donald Trump doesn’t share. It is all about him, not about his kids, not about his family, it is all about him.”

So they think that they are going to hitch themselves to his wagon in hopes that they are going to elevate themselves whether it is in power, through money, through connections and so forth, it does not work that way. He will not allow that and just like Putin, once you start to get too big for your own britches, people will start flying out of windows, they will end up in gulags. As Donald says all the time, send them to Gitmo, send them to Guantanamo Bay.

The one thing leftists always have lacked is a sense of irony. The Sixties saw the final repudiation of men who sounded warnings about Communism and its chief practicing country. That country was, of course, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – better known as Soviet Russia. For Michael Cohen now to use Russia as an example of “state-sponsored news” is ironic for that reason. And for another: National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service are the State sponsored news organs in America today. Not only that, but legacy media are State cooperative news under the Biden-Harris administration.

But yesterday Cohen said something more ironic to hostess Nicolle Wallace:

Q: What do you think happens to you if he wins?.

A: I’m out of here. I’m already working on a foreign passport with a completely different name. I don’t know how it is going to work as far as dealing with my wife and my children. I certainly don’t want them moving to where I’m looking to go.

I don’t think you or the president of the MSNBC, General Milley, Liz Cheney are safe. How many people has he turned around and said that these are people that I intend to go after if I have the ability to?

And the worst is the Supreme Court’s recent decision that gave him immunity, presidential immunity. Now he thinks it is not only can I do whatever I want, but I can’t even be prosecuted to get out of jail free card.

Q: So you’re out of here? Would you leave the country?

A: I have no choice.

To assume he read Sonia Sotomayor’s “five-alarm dissent” in the Presidential Immunity case (Trump v. United States) would be facile. Kew calls Cohen “a convicted perjurer and self-admitted thief.” That theft amounted to $60,000, and Cohen could have gotten 15 years for that. But death, he wouldn’t have gotten.

Project 2025 comes up

Michael Cohen also repeated another common Democratic Party refrain: Project 2025. Donald Trump has consistently disavowed any knowledge of Project 2025, or any role in it. Project 2025, a project of the Heritage Foundation, does exist. NPR submitted a 920-page document, that purports to be the Project 2025 outline, to Document Cloud. This is the real document.

Project 2025 has three parts:

1. An outline of policy prescriptions for the first 100 days of a second Trump administration,

2. A job application service for those hoping to secure jobs in government as Trump vacates certain positions, and

3. A training program for those requiring and wanting such training.

Project 2025 relies largely on Trump’s plan to create a new class of federal employees, called Schedule F. Schedule F employees would be newly recognizable as political – because they help make policy. Trump created Schedule F to remove Barack Obama’s hangers-on who, he knew, were committing sabotage. This would create vacancies in “civil service,” vacancies which Project 2025 intends to fill.

Multiple leftists have cried out that Schedule F would create personnel shortages, undermine national security, or create other such ills. In fact Schedule F would destroy the “we see Presidents come and go” attitude. Continuity of policy has always favored the growth, intrusiveness, and tyranny of the administrative state. In fact, the “Civil Service” includes all the Deep State’s moles in government. It is high time to remove them and replace them with patriots, not one-worlders.

What else does Michael Cohen say?

One can safely say that none of the dire screeds about the policy agenda of Project 2025 are accurate. The agenda document discusses specific changes at various Cabinet-level departments and certain “independent agencies.” It does not contain a legislative agenda. So everything Michael Cohen, or any abortion-rights or Alphabet Soup activist, now says about Project 2025 is a lie.

He told another lie:

I warned the whole country and the world, that if Donald Trump lost the Election [of] 2020, there would never be a peaceful transfer of power.

But there was. And if the country has been less than peaceful since, blame Biden and Harris, not Trump. Now he says,

And I am warning the country today,… that if Trump wins [the Election of 2024], there will never be another election again.

Nicolle Wallace, looking at him with the pseudo-worshipful expression any prostitute knows how to deliver, egged him further on. “Leading the witness” is the most common defense objection to any prosecutor’s or plaintiff attorney’s mode of questioning. And that is what Nicolle Wallace did, in this case suggesting Trump had Cohen imprisoned merely because Cohen was about to write a derogatory book about Trump.

He even suggested that Trump had called for the arrest and imprisonment of those criticizing the Supreme Court Justices who formed the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s. That’s not the case, either. Trump might have called for the arrest and imprisonment of those who threaten to assassinate those Justices. And those threats have come to pass – one against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and another against all six Dobbs majority Justices.

Yet another celebrity threatening (promising?) to leave if Trump wins

Your editor’s X feeds have always been full of posts talking about this or that celebrity threatening to leave the country if Donald Trump wins the election. Very likely, most of these are false. But when a celebrity actually gives an interview and says that, it’s worth noting. Herewith a sampling:

https://x.com/xtcoop/status/1838940368844284399

https://x.com/TimV2884/status/1838951856292131297

https://x.com/TaraBull808/status/1814833184238149867

https://x.com/Anaaeye/status/1830746941694873723

https://x.com/Rebel_MemeMaw/status/1838938837416104036

https://x.com/_wake_up_USA/status/1769729650379432363

Replies, quote-posts, and other reaction clearly shows that those voting for Trump, would not miss any of these people. When Michael Cohen’s announcement broke on X, most users had one of two two-word responses:

1. Ho Hum, or

2. Good riddance.

Where exactly Michael Cohen plans to go, he leaves few clues – and those clues are strange, if not dire. Where could he possibly go, that he wouldn’t want his wife or children to join him?

Where is Cohen going?

Whether Cohen is going anywhere, or not, his pronouncements are another matter. He is throwing off on Trump, pure and simple. Leftists – beginning with Josef Stalin – track down their enemies and execute them, even if those enemies go abroad. (Witness Leon Trotsky.) Leftists create State sponsored media – and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party is part of the left as well. Biden and the Deep State, not Trump, turned the first social media organs into State actors.

And the left are still doing it. Today, Jake Tapper, interviewing former Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), asked her about “a harsh Trump criticism of Kamala Harris.” Pelosi, apoplectic, asked, “Why would you even cover that?”

https://x.com/TPostMillennial/status/1838689958111916170

Gina Raimondo, Biden’s Commerce Secretary (and the official who lost the Chevron Deference cases), called on her fellow Democrats to “extinguish Trump for good.”

https://x.com/nataliegwinters/status/1838933085427011624

Cohen also accused Trump of planning to confiscate all of Elon Musk’s wealth. But that’s what the Biden-Harris administration probably plans. (Actually, Elon Musk won’t give those people the opportunity. He is re-headquartering his companies in Texas, while planning to launch and recover even his largest rocket ships at sea. In him we see the prime aerospace and defense contractor for the Republic of Texas, if Kamala Harris wins. So in mentioning Musk, Cohen probably just talked too much, and blew the gaffe.)

Summary

In sum, Michael Cohen is indulging in classic projection – throwing-off. But he also might have revealed too much about the kind of people with whom he has thrown in. Incidentally he might have revealed an upcoming plan that the American left would infinitely have preferred to keep secret.

Furthermore, he joins a long line of celebrities who have announced their intentions to leave the country if Trump wins. The list is certainly too long to reproduce here in full. Nor have we any indication – except from those who actually said something – that any one person actually intends to leave. But all are better gone – and the country can do without any more members of media – or the present administration – calling for Trump’s assassination, or using any such language.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2024/09/25/news/trump-scaring-people-out-usa/

Video:

Michael Cohen’s two interviews:

Project 2025:

Project site:

https://www.project2025.org/

Alleged project document (per NPR):

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise

Actual document: Mandate for Leadership, from the Project 2025 site:

https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

Sample posts about celebrities threatening to leave the country:

https://x.com/xtcoop/status/1838940368844284399

https://x.com/TimV2884/status/1838951856292131297

https://x.com/TaraBull808/status/1814833184238149867

https://x.com/Anaaeye/status/1830746941694873723

https://x.com/Rebel_MemeMaw/status/1838938837416104036

https://x.com/_wake_up_USA/status/1769729650379432363

Jake Tapper interview with Nancy Pelosi:

https://x.com/TPostMillennial/status/1838689958111916170

Gina Raimondo interview:

https://x.com/nataliegwinters/status/1838933085427011624

Declarations of Truth X feed:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/