'Every single monthly operating report filed by Mr. Giuliani has been untimely'

Hi buried his face in his hands amid the dramatic moment

Gary Leonard Oldman was born on March 21, 1958. Oldman would go on to become an actor and filmmaker who has worked in theater, film, and television. Known for his versatility and "big" acting style, Oldman is regarded as one of the greatest screen actors of his generation. With all the roles he's had over the years, he's gone through significant changes for whatever he was doing. Whether it' Source

The Senate on Thursday rejected President Joe Biden’s nominee to the Manhattan federal trial court. It was the first time a Biden judicial nominee has been rejected in the Democratic-majority Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee, on an 11-10 vote, rejected federal magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Every Republican voted against her, along with one Democrat, Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia. If approved, Netburn would have served for life. Netburn was rejected in part because of her decision to allow a male rapist to transfer to a women’s prison because he said he was a woman. Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee excoriated Netburn for placing women in danger that way. “The prisoner dubbed July Justine Shelby—his real name is William McLean—was a serial rapist,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said of the 6-foot-2-inch man. “There’s no other way to say it: His past criminal offenses included child molestation of a 9-year-old boy, rape of a 17-year-old girl, and criminal deviant conduct.” The prisoner was initially put in a men’s lockup, but at 51 years old, he decided he was a woman and argued that failure to put him in prison with women was a violation of his 8th Amendment right to not be subjected to “cruel and inhuman punishments.” Cruz said Netburn put “political ideology over justice and reality,” and allowed McLean to be transferred despite a “lifelong pattern of rape, sexual assault, and obvious sexually predatory instincts.” That was after the U.S. Bureau of Prisons rejected McLean’s requests to be moved out of a male facility. Cruz recounted several stories of men identifying as women harming and raping women in prison. The Texas lawmaker said he asked Netburn if she regretted the transfer, and she responded, “No, I faithfully applied the law to the facts.” Cruz said, “That is not the law, and these are not the facts.” All but Ossoff among the Democrats on the committee supported Netburn. “It is fair to ask whether the judge made a reasonable decision in this case at the time she made the decision,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said according to Courthouse News. “The decision by the district court to support her decision is an indication that it was fair and reasonable.” Ossoff, however, said he couldn’t support Netburn. “I’m passionate about civil rights and human rights in carceral facilities,” Ossoff said in an interview with Courthouse News. “These are tough issues, but that was my judgment in the markup [Thursday].” Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., said that Netburn was rightly rejected, but noted that she was still approved by most of the committee’s Democrats, demonstrating the radical nature of that party. “While the committee voted this nominee down, all but one Democrat voted to move forward. I hope the American people are watching what’s going on when it comes to the Democratic agenda,” Graham said. “Female prisoners being housed with biological males is an affront to safety and common sense, and it needs to stop.” The post Judge Nominee Who Allowed Biological Male Into Women’s Prison Rejected By Senate Panel appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Elon: EU Offered Me a Secret Deal to Censor X

Politico: Biden Presser Pushed 'Shocked' Allies Toward Trump

Following a mediocre press conference by President Biden, CNN’s Laura Coates took to her eponymous show on Thursday night to applaud a brilliant answer where there was none, to complain of “elementary” questions regarding his health, and to make an example of her own live mishap, as an example that “that’s sometimes what happens.” At the top of the hour, Coates began her segment, speaking about Biden’s conference and the critics he was facing. However, after her voice gave out, the host had this to say in solidarity with Biden: [Cough] Hold on, excuse me. [Cough] Now see, if I were running for president right now and this happened to my voice, would you say that I was no longer qualified. If this were happening and I was a candidate for office, would I be completely inept? Would you judge me differently than every other anchor who may have sneezed on air or cleared their throat differently? Would you look at it as a one-off for episodic in some way? Would you say to yourselves ‘this my friends is the very reason this person can no longer be trusted?’ Or what you say that maybe you'll have to wait and see how her voice performs for the rest of the show? Now, I didn't use that example willingly to make sure that you've got the point and drove it home. My voice did, in fact, give out. But that's sometimes what happens. But again, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not the one running for President and you don't have the same standard for me.     Coates is clearly behind in the liberal excuses, as covering Biden with claims of colds and voice failure are no longer enough for many voters. Yet, this was not the last time the host took the side of Biden, as she seemed to praise his answer to an interview question, not commenting on his very obvious struggle to answer: President Biden tonight peppered with questions about his candidacy. He was asked if he would be willing to take a cognitive test. He was asked what he thinks about Democrats calling for him to step down. He was asked if he's the most qualified to beat Trump and you'd be forgiven if you thought he did not get a single question about policy. But he did. Including a couple from CNN, political and national security analyst David Sanger. Here's one of them. She then played a clip of Sanger asking, “I'm not sure you answered on whether you would be ready to go deal with Putin and XI two or three years from now.” After multiple pauses, and what seemed like a loss of thought, Biden answered the question, a feat that should be considered impressive by any means. Yet, Coates went on to talk about the supposed complexities of the question with Sanger using the dialogue as leverage to cite the allegedly impressive nature of the Biden’s answer, “You know before that exchange, you had asked Biden a pretty complex, complicated foreign policy question about Russia's relationship with China. And I wondered, and some people did wonder about the motivation compared to some of the other questions that were a little bit more elementary about his campaign. Were you trying to test his flow of information?” Sanger replied, “Yes… What I wanted to do was just watch him pace through a complex but daily, not obscure, foreign policy problem involving our two biggest superpower rivals and he wound around a bit, but he did address it and hit all of the major points. I had to sort of step in and say, are you trying to disrupt it? And he said at one point, “Yes. But I'm not going to tell you how.” The transcript is below, click “expand” to read: CNN Laura Coates Live 7/11/2024 11:04:57 PM EST (...) LAURA COATES: What would you have voters do? [Cough] Besides cough on live television? Hold on… [Cough] Not today, Satan. [Cough] Hold on excuse me. Now see, if I were running for president right now and this happened to my voice, would you say that I was no longer qualified. If this were happening and I was a candidate [Cough] for office would I be completely inept? Would you judge me differently than every other anchor who may have sneezed on air or cleared their throat differently? Would you look at it as a one-off or episodic in some way? Would you say to yourselves this my friends is the very reason this person can no longer be trusted? Or what you say that maybe you'll have to wait and see how her voice performs for the rest of the show? Now, I didn't use that example willingly to make sure that you got the point and drove it home. My voice did, in fact give out. But that's sometimes what happens. But again, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not the one running for president and you don't have the same standard for me. (...)   11:50:42 AM EST COATES: President Biden tonight peppered with questions about his candidacy. He was asked if he would be willing to take a cognitive test. He was asked what he thinks about Democrats calling for him to step down. He was asked if he's the most qualified to beat Trump and you'd be forgiven if you thought he did not get a single question about policy. But he did. Including a couple from CNN, political and national security analyst David Sanger. Here's one of them: [Cut to video] DAVID SANGER: I'm not sure you answered on whether you would be ready to go deal with Putin and Xi two or three years from now. JOE BIDEN: I'm ready to deal with them now and three years from now. Look, um… the, ugh, like I said, I'm dealing with Xi right now and direct contact with him. I have no good reason to talk to Putin right now. There's not much that he is prepared to do in terms of accommodating any change in his behavior? And, but there isn't any world leader I'm not prepared to deal with. COATES: David Sanger joins me now. David, good to have you here. You know before that exchange, you had asked Biden a pretty complex, complicated foreign policy question about Russia's relationship with China. And I wondered, and some people did wonder about the motivation compared to some of the other questions that were a little bit more elementary about his campaign. Were you trying to test his flow of information? SANGER: Yes. Look, this is – the question that I asked which was just before the one that you showed on the clip was this, that during his presidency, we have seen a remarkable thing happen, which is that China and Russia have begun to come together, act together in partnership. And just yesterday, pushed by his administration, NATO came out and condemned the Chinese for giving the technology to the Russians that’s rebuilding their military and enabling them to fight in Ukraine. So, my question to him was, are you prepared to disrupt the Russia-China relationship? I didn't say whether they would disrupt it overtly, covertly, and it's a subject that is debated in the Biden White House every single day. It's one he's never talked about. But I knew he knew about it in great length. And I've written a lot on this topic and so why I just wanted to see was I figured everybody will have asked by the time he got to me, if he got to me, “Are you leaving the ticket? Are you staying” and all that? But I wanted to do was just watch him pace through a complex, but daily, not obscure foreign policy problem involving our two biggest superpower rivals and he wound around a bit, but, you know, he did address it and hit all of the major points. I had to, sort of, step in and say, “are you trying to disrupt it?” And he said at one point, “Yes. But I'm not going to tell you how.”  COATES: Were you satisfied to think that he was responding to you off the cuff with a basis of understanding from the briefings that you were aware that he’d be receiving?  SANGER: Yes. Yeah. I mean, I knew that he was discussing this topic with his aides, you know, very frequently. It's the biggest foreign policy problem in many ways that they face. The most complex and long-lasting. And I just wanted to see how he dealt with it. The question that you showed Laura, which was, “Are you prepared three years from now to sit down and see Putin the way he did in 2021 is one meeting or with Xi Jinping?” was an effort to get him – this did not work as well –  to address whether he thinks he would be in good enough shape three years from now to go, you know, one-to-one with Vladimir Putin. He interpreted it somewhat differently. And basically said, I'm dealing with Xi now, I'll always be ready to go deal with them, but I am refusing to talk to Putin. It was an interesting answer. I was just trying to get him away – every time you ask him how he's going to be in the future, he tells you what he's done in the past. And I was just trying to see if I could get them to talk about the future.

President Joe Biden held his first solo press conference of 2024, and just like the debate and the interview that followed it — it was a disaster. Stu Burguiere, while concerned for the country, can’t help but laugh. “Let’s start off with the big news leading up to the nonsense, which was Joe Biden calling Volodymyr Zelenskyy ‘President Putin.’ That was how this day started out,” he says, stifling a chuckle. While Biden is attempting to prove that he’s not an “incompetent boob,” as Stu puts it, what he did at the NATO conference in Washington, D.C. — was the opposite. “Your situation here is ‘I need to show my competence, and that that competence won’t blow up a major international situation,’ perhaps literally, and what you do on that day — to be clear — is to do exactly what Vladimir Putin would want you to do,” Stu says. “Like you actually go on and say he’s the president of Ukraine. What a start,” Stu laughs again. Biden then took the stage at his press conference, where it got worse. “At one point, he starts bragging about both the economy and the border. And that is the clearest example that this man has completely lost his mind. There’s no way a person who is coherent could possibly brag about the border of the United States of America,” Stu says. Though Biden had caught himself after he called Zelenskyy “Putin,” he did not catch himself later when he called Vice President Kamala Harris “Vice President Trump.” “Not a good sign,” Stu comments, “not a positive development.” Despite the obvious being that the press conference was bad, Stu believes it actually wasn’t that bad for Biden. “He did stay on his feet, he started to fade a little bit towards the end, some of the stuff is pretty boring. The whispering started to kick in about halfway through when he did a lot of it,” Stu says, adding, “It’s really off-putting, it’s really weird, nobody’s ever liked it, but he continues to do it.” Want more from Stu?To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A California U.S. Army veteran serving an 18-month prison sentence for obstructing Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, was ordered released July 12 under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the most commonly charged Jan. 6 felony and its maximum 20-year prison term.Jorge Aaron Riley, 46, of Sacramento, will be released “forthwith” from the federal lockup in Lompoc, California, under an order issued July 12 by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C. Mehta granted Riley's request for bail pending resolution of a motion to vacate the sentence.Riley’s release is the latest fallout from the Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark case Fischer v. United States. In a 6-3 opinion on June 28, the high court said the U.S. Department of Justice could only use the felony obstructing charge if it could prove defendants impaired the use of documents, objects, or “other things” used during counting of Electoral College votes at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6.Riley was arrested in January 2021 and later indicted on five criminal counts, including felony obstruction and misdemeanors related to alleged trespassing on Capitol grounds. In March 2023, he accepted a plea deal on the one obstructing count under 18 U.S. Code §1512(c)(2).In the FBI’s original statement of facts in the case, Riley was seen on various videos boasting that he made it into the Capitol. “We broke windows, we went into the door, we pushed our way in, and then we just kept going further and further,” Riley said, according to the FBI.'Tom Caldwell is literally the Richard Jewell of January 6.'Despite that statement, Riley was not charged with damage to property or assaulting law enforcement. The FBI quoted Riley’s words extensively from more than 150 posts he made on Facebook on Jan. 6 and in the days after.“We stopped the steal because they were in there and they weren’t going to stop the steal, so we stopped the steal,” he wrote in one post. “We took our country back. F*** you guys.”Although many Jan. 6 defendants and their attorneys hailed the Supreme Court ruling as a victory, it appears that the DOJ is not giving up on making the felony charge stick. In numerous court filings since June 28, prosecutors expressed the view that the Supreme Court did not ban them from using §1512(c)(2), a law enacted in 2002 to fight corporate fraud after the Enron accounting scandal.In the case of Guy Wesley Reffitt, “the court did not reject the application of §1512(c)(2) to January 6 prosecutions,” a DOJ filing said. “Rather, the court explained that the government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding — such as witness testimony or intangible information — or attempted to do so.”In some court filings, the DOJ made what appear to be new allegations. Responding to probationer Tara Stottlemyer’s motion to vacate her §1512(c)(2) conviction, prosecutors said she “intended to stop the certification proceeding and affect the voting and balloting underlying the certification.”Defense attorney William Shipley said this approach is not going to work. He filed a motion to compel the government to produce grand jury testimony proving Stottlemyer impaired documents or records used in the counting of Electoral College votes.“There can be no dispute that the second superseding indictment did not describe in any fashion records, documents, objects or ‘other things’ being impaired or otherwise manipulated by Ms. Stottlemyer at any time on January 6, 2021,” Shipley wrote July 5.'There is no evidence he engaged in any such conduct on January 6, 2021.'Shipley said the motion was filed "on the grounds that the failure to offer testimony about 'evidence impairment' is now exculpatory if the government suddenly has some magic evidence or theory to try and salvage these convictions."Prosecutors are asking for delays in most obstruction-related cases to more fully assess the impacts of the Fischer decision. The High Court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”The sentencing hearing for Thomas E. Caldwell — found guilty in the first Oath Keepers trial in November 2022 of obstruction of an official proceeding and tampering with documents or proceedings — is scheduled for Oct. 22. Caldwell was found not guilty of three other counts.Defense attorney David Fischer said he plans to file a renewed motion for acquittal on Caldwell’s obstruction charge. Before the Supreme Court ruling in the Fischer case, prosecutors said they would ask Judge Mehta to sentence Caldwell to 14 years in prison. "The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the DOJ's over-zealous prosecution of Tom Caldwell and other J6ers," Fischer told Blaze News. "We will be requesting that the court reconsider its earlier denial of our motion for acquittal and find Tom not guilty. Tom Caldwell is literally the Richard Jewell of January 6." Jewell was a security guard falsely accused of taking part in the bombing of the Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996. Despite helping clear the area around a suspicious backpack that detonated a short time later, Jewell fell under FBI suspicion and the resulting hail of negative media coverage. He was later exonerated.John Strand, serving a 32-month prison sentence for §1512(c)(2) obstruction of Congress and four misdemeanors, has filed a second motion for release pending the appeal of his sentence.Defense attorney Nicholas Smith said there was nothing introduced at trial showing Strand committed evidence impairment. Even if there was such evidence, Smith wrote, it would have to be charged under §1512(c)(1), which was not among Strand's counts.In a February 2024 memorandum opinion denying Strand's release, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper said if the Supreme Court were to toss out §1512(c)(2), "Strand’s conviction under the same statute would likely be reversed as well because there is no evidence he engaged in any such conduct on January 6, 2021."

Two little girls who died in an alcohol-related crash near Las Vegas about 18 months ago have now received a small measure of justice as the adults in the vehicle — their mother and aunt — are both sentenced to time behind bars.On the night of December 11, 2022, Kayleah Manning was in a van driving around North Las Vegas, Nevada. Her older sister, Raenysa Clydette-Glenn Washington, was in the passenger seat, and Washington's two daughters — Taylor Wilmer, 3, and Rose Wilmer, 2 — were in the backseat restrained by adult seatbelts, as Blaze News previously reported.'The problem is I’m not sure that all of these mistakes are things that could happen to a responsible parent.'Suddenly, Manning veered from her lane, struck a curb, and hit a small tree and light pole before crashing into a large palm tree.As a result of the crash, little Rose was decapitated and pronounced dead at the scene. Her sister, Taylor, was rushed to the hospital but succumbed to her injuries the following day.Both Manning and Washington were also transported to the hospital, where they remained in critical condition for some time. They were also placed under arrest while they underwent treatment for their injuries.Witnesses claimed that at least one of the women seemed "nonchalant" about the deadly crash. "When she was getting out of the car, she just stepped on the baby and walked to the grass," one witness said.Another witness claimed one of the women just "left the baby there." Whether the witnesses were referring to Manning or Washington is unclear.Evidence that Manning was under the influence of alcohol was apparent from the start. Police described her eyes as bloodshot, her speech as slurred, and her breath as smelling strongly of "an alcoholic beverage." Tests taken about two hours after the crash reportedly revealed that her blood-alcohol level was over .19, more than twice the legal limit. Manning allegedly admitted to consuming two shots of tequila that night. Washington reportedly told police that her sister may have split an entire bottle of tequila with a friend.Washington also apparently admitted that she knew putting toddlers into adult seatbelts and not car seats was wrong but felt she "couldn’t argue" since it was not her car. Other reports indicate Washington had sold the car seats a week before the crash.Though Manning, 25, was initially assessed a bevy of serious charges, in April, she pled guilty to two counts of DUI resulting in death. That same month, Washington, 27, pled guilty to two counts of child abuse or neglect.On Thursday, the two women stood before Judge Erika Mendoza to learn their sentence. Both wept as they made statements asking for mercy."No matter if it was an accident, no matter if I would never hurt my children, no matter if it was a mistake, it was my fault," said Washington. "And today I'm ready to take full accountability of this, and for the remainder of my life, I will.""I never imagined being the cause of so much hurt to my family, my nieces, or myself," said Manning. "But while I have been incarcerated, I've enrolled in the SOARS program to seek the help that I may need to understand myself and what led me to the position I am in today."Judge Mendoza reportedly shed tears herself but still sentenced both women to serve time.Manning was sentenced to three to 10 years in prison with credit for the 108 days already served. Once she is released, she must have a breath monitor in her car for at least a year.Washington was sentenced to just shy of a year in jail with credit for the 11 days already served. She was given a prison sentence as well, but that sentence was immediately suspended. So long as Washington remains out of trouble once she is released and on probation, she will never have to serve the suspended sentence. However, one technical violation will land her back in jail, the judge ruled.Since the crash, Washington has given birth to a baby boy. She is also currently pregnant, due sometime in December.Washington asked to delay starting her jail sentence until Monday so that she could say goodbye to her son, but Judge Mendoza refused. "The problem is I’m not sure that all of these mistakes are things that could happen to a responsible parent," Mendoza said.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!