'I’m going to stop it here'

Obama acknowledged Biden's struggles

'Tyrannize the entire world'

'Out of nowhere this guy came inside the car and I grabbed on to the car'

Debt in itself is not a problem

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Five mental health professionals, some of whom already accused  Donald Trump of being “dangerous,” prepared a risk assessment for New York state Judge Juan Merchan to consider in his July 11 sentencing decision on Trump, according to forensic psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a longtime critic of the former president. It isn’t clear whether the five are all psychiatrists or may have other training. Their risk assessment could be a factor in the severity of Merchan’s sentence for Trump in Manhattan Criminal Court, which could be up to 20 years in prison for all 34 felony counts on which he was convicted last month. Lee edited the book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President,” first released in 2017. In May, she published a new book titled “The Psychology of Trump Contagion: An Existential Threat to American Democracy and All Humankind.”  Lee, who has taught at Yale, Columbia, and Harvard, also opposed recent calls from some Republican members of Congress to invoke the 25th Amendment for Biden, which would allow for his temporary removal by Vice President Kamala Harris and the Cabinet.  Such calls were renewed by Biden’s performance in Thursday night’s debate with Trump. “The reason why so many people see problems with Joe Biden is that Donald Trump is projecting his mental symptoms on to Joe Biden so he can deny his own symptoms,” Lee told The Daily Signal, reflecting on the debate between the incumbent Democrat and his Republican opponent. “There is a huge difference between being unfit and someone who does not present very well,” she said. “Joe Biden’s presentation makes people lose confidence in him. That’s not at all equal to danger or unfitness.” Merchan presided over Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, where last month a jury convicted the 45th president on 34 felony counts in connection with his efforts to cover up an alleged sexual encounter with porn star Stormy Daniels.  Merchan next will preside over the former president’s July 11 sentencing.  Lee said the mental health professionals made recommendations to the judge concerning the danger Trump poses to the public, how likely he is to commit a crime, and what message the sentencing would send to future offenders.  The forensic psychiatrist said she would not make their recommendations public until after the sentencing, and declined to name the others who signed on. But she referred to public statements she and colleagues already have made in assessing Trump.  Lee said that she and other mental health professionals evaluated special counsel Robert Mueller’s 2019 report and determined Trump wasn’t fit to be president. Mueller investigated and was unable to confirm allegations of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Lee argued that a mental fitness test doesn’t require an interview. A “functional” test does not require the cooperation of the subject, while a “diagnostic” test would, she said.  However, Lee said she and colleagues did no such functional test on Biden, because they didn’t believe the incumbent president posed a danger to the public, but believed Trump did.  “We only did it for Donald Trump because he poses a danger to the public,” Lee said. “Mental health professionals have a responsibility to society and are required to act.” She and her colleagues also weren’t asked to evaluate Biden, Lee said. However, she noted: “Our group has recommended that Joe Biden volunteer to take a test and set a standard for future presidents.”  Some high-ranking military officers are required to take mental assessment tests, Lee noted.  During the debate, Trump noted that he had taken two cognitive tests, and that Biden hadn’t. Such a test only proves someone doesn’t belong in a nursing home, Lee said.  The forensic psychiatrist then criticized Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, who was White House physician for both Trump and Barack Obama before him. “I have often criticized Dr. Ronny Jackson. He is neither trained nor qualified to conduct a mental fitness exam,” Lee said. “He was an employee of the White House and a subordinate of the commander-in-chief. He had a conflict of interest.”  As for Thursday night’s Biden-Trump debate, Lee argued that it never should have happened—and not because of Biden.  “I would have recommended that a debate not be held,” she said. “Why elevate to a level of normalcy someone who is not normal like Donald Trump?” The post EXCLUSIVE: Therapists Who Called Trump Dangerous Make Sentencing Suggestions to New York Judge appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The editor-in-chief and publisher of the Tennessee Star was ordered to appear in court last week and threatened with charges of contempt after his news website reported on an anonymously leaked collection of documents authored by Nashville mass shooter Audrey Elizabeth Hale. Michael Patrick Leahy was joined by his attorneys in court on Monday for a “show-cause hearing,” where the journalist was asked by Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea Myles to demonstrate why his outlet’s reporting does not subject him to contempt proceedings and sanctions. On March 27, 2023, Hale (born Audrey Elizabeth Hale) entered the Covenant School armed with three semiautomatic guns and killed six people, including three 9-year-old children. Hale, who was eventually shot and killed by police in the school, was a transgender man and former student at Covenant who harbored extremist sentiments on race, gender, and politics. The massacre remains the deadliest mass shooting in Tennessee history. Adam Goldstein, a senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told RealClear last week that there is no legal basis whatsoever on which Myles can pursue contempt proceedings against Leahy. “It has not been alleged by anyone to date that the Star or Leahy did anything unlawful to obtain this information,” Goldstein said, speaking of the leaked documents, “or that the information was not basically accurate as published.” Reporting on leaked documents, however they were obtained by a source, is an essential journalistic practice protected by U.S. Supreme Court precedent. A legal battle over Hale’s so-called manifesto kicked off soon after her identity was confirmed on the day of the shooting. Unlike other recent mass shootings, the perpetrator’s writings were not published online beforehand. Investigators with the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department and the FBI have refused to release Hale’s writings and other documents related to the investigation, stating in an internal memo their desire to protect “legacy tokens,” or articulations of the perpetrator’s motivations, from inspiring copycats. Leahy and Star News Digital Media are plaintiffs in two ongoing lawsuits that seek to compel the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department and the FBI, respectively, to release the documents. Myles presides over the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department suit. Amid these pending suits, the Tennessee Star received images of Hale’s diary from an undisclosed source. In a series of recent reports for The Star, Tom Pappert detailed elements of “nearly four dozen images of notebook pages written by Hale that were recovered from the vehicle she drove to the Covenant School,” supplied to The Star by an anonymous source familiar with the investigation. On June 10, Myles ordered Leahy to court to prove that he had not violated a court order by reporting on the leaked documents. Tennessee law protects the reporting, and attorney Daniel A. Horwitz was unable to get clarity from Myles on which orders Leahy might have run afoul of. Myles’ legal theory appears to rely on the notion of prior restraint, which can, in certain cases of extreme risk—such as threats to national security or the possibility of imminent loss of life—legally suppress speech or material before it is published. In practice, legal prior restraints are rare, perhaps even unconstitutional. “Prior restraints are the least justifiable forms of censorship in First Amendment tradition,” Goldstein says, adding that it would require extraordinary circumstances for a prior restraint claim on speech to be constitutional. “If the prior orders prohibited publication of this material, they’re presumptively unconstitutional prior restraints.” While last week’s hearing ended without formal action against him, Leahy remains in legal jeopardy, according to The Star. In a statement provided exclusively to RealClear, Leahy emphasized the legality of his outlet’s reporting. “At the Tennessee Star,” he wrote, “we’ve provided an important public service by reporting the details of 80 pages of the Covenant killer’s journal, which we obtained legally.” Leahy additionally emphasized that The Star has not yet published the documents themselves, opting instead to report on the most newsworthy aspects of the diary pages provided to them. Those included revelations that Hale was motivated to die by a “pure hatred of [her] female gender” and referred to herself as “white nothingness,” among other salient details. Hale had reportedly been a mental-health patient for 22 years at a Vanderbilt clinic known for practicing a controversial transgender medicine program that one doctor referred to as “big money,” according to The Star.  Those revelations provide important insight into Hale’s mental state and motivations preceding the atrocity, information that is typically made public soon after similar mass-shooting events. For example, when Rolling Stone reviewed the manifesto of Jacksonville, Florida, shooter Ryan Christopher Palmeter, an avowed white supremacist, in 2023, no similar legal threats were issued. The New York Post is so far the only national outlet to cover this case as a First Amendment threat, along with numerous local Tennessee publications and independent platforms. Coverage has tended to come from the right side of the political spectrum. Leahy appeared on the conservative news program The Gorka Reality Check, and on Steve Bannon’s War Room. The Transgender Terror Threat@MichaelPLeahy joins The Gorka Reality Check pic.twitter.com/Tks98iR0y8— Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) June 24, 2024 In its coverage, the New York Times gives the court summons a single sentence, instead focusing on “the arguments for and against releasing the writings,” a troubling default position for a newspaper to take. Many conservatives feel this asymmetry in coverage represents the mainstream media’s unwillingness to highlight the role Hale’s transgender identity might have played in the attack. Before we can debate what led Hale to commit such a heinous act, we must have a full accounting of the relevant documents. It is first and foremost a question of the First Amendment, not of gender politics. The First Amendment implications of this episode are obvious and grave: A local publisher is threatened with potential criminal charges for merely reporting on legally obtained documents. Leahy’s treatment also raises concern over the increasing hostility that judiciaries express toward the journalistic practice of maintaining source-confidentiality. Two days after issuing Leahy’s order to appear and show cause, the court expanded Myles’ directive to include a local government official suspected of leaking the documents to The Star. What began as a narrow threat to Leahy’s First Amendment rights ballooned into a hunt for his confidential source. In this way, Leahy’s case mirrors that of former Fox and CBS investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, who was held in civil contempt by a U.S. District Court judge in 2019 for failing to divulge the identity of one of her sources for a 2017 story about an FBI investigation. Herridge was threatened with a fine of $800 a day until she revealed her source(s) to the court. That penalty has been stayed pending appeal but remains potentially enforceable. Herridge published an account of her legal battle in The Free Press earlier this week. Ordering Leahy to reveal his source, thereby opening that source up to criminal prosecution, would violate a ruling in the landmark 1971 Pentagon Papers Supreme Court case, wherein six justices decided that The New York Times was protected by the First Amendment when publishing confidential Pentagon documents it had received from military analyst Daniel Ellsberg. Taken together, these cases represent a remarkable departure in recent years from the formerly ironclad protections afforded to journalists working with confidential documents. Whether on the state or federal level, these efforts to curtail a free press in court must be repudiated. One would hope that the national press would unify against this gathering threat to its collective freedom. Originally published at RealClearWire.com We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Court Threatens First Amendment Rights of Tennessee News Website After Publication of Nashville School Shooting Documents appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Read the original post "Homemade Hard Pretzel Recipe" on A Modern Homestead. These homemade hard pretzels are perfectly crunchy and delightfully golden brown. You can make them into rods, mini pretzel sticks, or even mini pretzel twists! Use these homemade hard pretzels for a snack on their own, or mix them into a snack mix for the perfect homemade crunch! When we made the switch to einkorn... Read More The post "Homemade Hard Pretzel Recipe" appeared first on A Modern Homestead.

Biden Isn't Stepping Aside (Plus Trump Takes the High Road)

Over the last week or two, MSNBC has blasted conservative videos of Biden as “cheap fakes.” The videos, often highlighting the senile actions of Biden, have been accused of being “manipulated” and “misinformation.” However, following Thursday’s debate, Biden’s condition was undeniable, forcing Ana Cabrera Reports to admit further videos won’t be needed as they lamented Biden was un able to respond to Trump’s “lies.” Cabrera played a clip of Trump and wondered, “We know so much of what we heard there is not true, and yet time after time in answering questions, he spouted falsehoods and mistruths, you could call them lies, unchecked. I mean, what was your reaction to that?” MSNBC Republican mourned that: There was so many lost opportunities for President Biden, and I actually think he was probably really well-prepared, but he was almost overprepared. He had too much information … he just couldn't deliver the lines. And that goes to the underlying problem of his age, which he was supposed to show the American public last night that he could be ready for another four years, and lead this country. And what is very concerning going forward from this debate for President Biden is that there's a narrative now built in.     Distraught, Cabrera again wondered, “But does Trump just get a free pass for the lies?” Del Percio gave her some bad news, “Yes, you know what, Trump is going to get a free pass for the lies for no other reason than the Biden story is bigger. Trump didn't blow up. He didn't set himself on fire. He lied. Everyone knows he lied. So, for that small sliver, they're in a really hard spot right now, especially those independents who lean right. They really weren't thrilled with Joe Biden, to begin with, but they voted country over party. Now, they're just freaked out about the status of their country. Democrats have been reconsidering if Biden is the right choice in this election. Many wonder why they ignored Biden’s decrepit state until now, ignoring the obvious and writing off its proof as “fake.” But they can’t do that, they can’t admit their being wrong entirely, and so the media twists it. For example, Cabrera tried to give credence to the Biden campaign’s excuse that Biden just had a cold, “But I just wonder, if that's the case, if he should have just come out there right off the bat and said so, and said, ‘hey, look, guys, I know my voice isn't up to 100 percent tonight, I am fighting a cold, but I want to be here, this conversation's important, and I am a fighter, and I'm going to show that to you tonight by doing this, and let's get it on.’" Unfortunately for her, Del Percio had even more bad news: Well it’s a visual medium in television, and that slack jawed face that was basically frozen in place every time Donald Trump spoke, I would say that's the place where I'm really wondering what happened at debate prep because that was something he should have been really aware of and prepared for. That again, the mouth agape, they won’t need cheap fake videos, they can actually use videos from CNN and make--. Yet another example of MSNBC trying to do damage control for Biden.   The transcript is below, click “expand” to read: MSNBC Ana Cabrera Reports 6/28/2024 10:10:41 AM EST ANA CABRERA: We know so much of what we heard there is not true, and yet time after time in answering questions, he spouted falsehoods and mistruths, you could call them lies, unchecked. I mean, what was your reaction to that? SUSAN DEL PERCIO: It was -- there was so many lost opportunities for President Biden, and I actually think he was probably really well-prepared, but he was almost overprepared. He had too much information as--. CABRERA: President Biden you're thinking? DEL PERCIO: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, President Biden, excuse me. I think he was -- he just couldn't deliver the lines and that goes to the underlying problem of his age, which he was supposed to show the American public last night that he could be ready for another four years, and lead this country. And what is very concerning going forward from this debate for President Biden is that there's a narrative now built in. It started with his age and that built in. Now, the narrative is going to be for at least five or six days, should he step out of the race? CABRERA: But does Trump just get a free pass for the lies? DEL PERCIO: Yes, you know what, Trump is going to get a free pass for the lies for no other reason than the Biden story is bigger. Trump didn't blow up. He didn't set himself on fire. He lied. Everyone knows he lied. So, for that small sliver, they're in a really hard spot right now, especially those independents who lean right. They really weren't thrilled with Joe Biden, to begin with, but they voted country over party. Now, they're just freaked out about the status of their country. (...)    10:13:45 AM EST CABRERA: Well, he had a soft voice, which was very obvious when he started to answer the first question and later, his allies and team were telling us it was because he had a cold, that his voice wasn't so strong. But I just wonder, if that's the case, if he should have just come out there right off the bat and said so, and said "hey, look, guys, I know my voice isn't up to 100 percent tonight, I am fighting a cold, but I want to be here, this conversation's important, and I am a fighter, and I'm going to show that to you tonight by doing this, and let's get it on." DEL PERCIO: Well, it’s a visual medium, television, and that slack jawed face that was basically frozen in place every time Donald Trump spoke, I would say that's the place where I'm really wondering what happened at debate prep because that was something he should have been really aware of and prepared for. That again, the mouth agape, they won’t need cheap fake videos, they can actually use videos from CNN and make – you know, do their thing with their their--