DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—A judge’s ruling that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was “unconstitutional” almost inevitably will end up before the Supreme Court, potentially dooming Smith’s Jan. 6 case against former President Donald Trump along with the classified documents case that the judge tossed. Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Attorney General Merrick Garland, President Joe Biden’s appointee, didn’t have the authority to name Smith, a private citizen who wasn’t appointed by the president nor confirmed by the Senate, to prosecute the classified documents case against Trump. Cannon’s decision Monday to dismiss the classified documents case—which comes just weeks after the Supreme Court agreed that former presidents have immunity for official acts committed in office—is good news for Trump. It won’t be limited to the prosecution in Florida, but likely will affect Smith’s other prosecution of the former president in Washington, D.C. “The Mar-a-Lago documents case has long been considered the strongest one against Trump,” former federal prosecutor Joseph Moreno told the Daily Caller News Foundation, referring to Trump’s Florida residence, where he kept documents he took when he left the White House in January 2021. “With this decision, it is now indefinitely prolonged and may even fall away,” Moreno said. Smith will appeal the ruling, his office said Monday. Smith could appeal Cannon’s ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which would take time and likely result in a circuit split that would make a Supreme Court review almost certain. “Although Judge Cannon will, no doubt, be attacked by the Left as a political hack who is doing Trump’s bidding, this would be a grossly unfair characterization,” John Malcolm, vice president for The Heritage Foundation’s Institute for Constitutional Government, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Malcolm, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, said Cannon’s 93-page ruling “should be judged on its merits, not on whether someone likes or dislikes the outcome of this particular case.” Malcolm added: Indeed, the appointment of special prosecutors vested with almost unlimited authority and without any input from the legislature was one of the grievances cited against King George III in the Declaration of Independence and is the reason why the Constitution’s appointments clause was crafted to give Congress a role in the appointment of special prosecutors. Cannon’s opinion points out precisely why Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith violates the Constitution, since Congress never passed a statute giving Garland such authority. Trump’s case brought by Smith in Washington, D.C., where Trump was indicted on four counts for alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, likely will be affected by Cannon’s decision. “Technically [District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan] is not bound by Cannon’s decision, and based on her hostility to Trump in the past she likely will not follow it,” Moreno said. “But this allows Trump to raise the same issue and, again, knowing that the Supreme Court will ultimately back him.” The D.C. Circuit previously rejected the argument Cannon accepted when it ruled on a challenge to special counsel Bob Mueller’s appointment in February 2019 to look into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. This means Cannon’s ruling likely won’t have an immediate effect on Trump’s other case, Malcolm said. “That is the law in the D.C. Circuit, where the Jan. 6 case is pending,” he said. “The issue of the appointment of Smith should equally impact both the [Florida] and D.C. case, but given the differing positions of the judges to date, they will likely remain in contradiction of one another until this case goes up on appeal,” former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasy told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Even at the Circuit Court level, there will likely remain division, and it will have to go to SCOTUS for clear direction.” Justice Clarence Thomas weighed in with his concurring opinion in the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, signaling his belief that Smith’s prosecution “may violate our constitutional structure.” Cherkasky said “it’s unclear whether the other justices will agree” with Thomas, since “that issue was not specifically before the court.” “It will be many months of discussions within the court to arrive at a majority opinion on this issue, and there is not good precedent to predict how they will decide this issue,” he said. Moreno argued that dropping the case entirely would likely be “the smartest political decision” in light of Biden’s “own history in mishandling classified documents.” “Bottom line is that based on last week’s [attempted] assassination of Trump, President Biden can appear to be a conciliatory force; he can drop these cases, all of which have significant legal questions and political ramifications,” Moreno told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “If he is serious about tamping down the hostility and anger in our nation today, let’s hope he actually backs his words with action,” Moreno said. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Jack Smith’s Other Big Trump Case Could Go Down in Flames After Judge Finds His Appointment ‘Unconstitutional’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Internet Archive (IA) is involved in a legal battle in the US to defend what’s referred to as its “controlled digital lending” (CDL) program. IA is trying to fend off publishers, who sued the non-profit for copyright infringement. Late last month, the AI effort continued in a bid to challenge a March 2023 US district court ruling that sided with the publishers regarding all 127 titles named in the original lawsuit filed against its Open Library project. IA, dedicated to providing free access to collections of digitized materials, had partnered with libraries to scan books and then provide them to users as “lendable e-books.” But the court decision said IA had no right to do that. Now, comes the appeals process. And in between, IA had to remove as many as half a million books, prompting an open letter to publishers, signed by 30,000 readers, authors, researchers, etc., trying to argue their case in favor of the need to restore access to this content. The letter tried to appeal to what big companies, like the publishers in question, at some (opportune) times seem to fully embrace, to the point of creating a “cancel culture” – namely, that people with low income, those living in rural areas, the “LGBT community” – suffer the most from the consequences of their actions. But, this right now doesn’t seem to be one of those opportune moments, and after arguments were presented in late June, Brewster Kahle, who, way back when, founded the Internet Archive, was disappointed. “Those voices weren’t being heard,” Kahle was quoted as saying. Maybe the tactic was wrong – given that this is not 2020, or 2021. In this here 2024, “judges appeared primarily focused on understanding how IA’s digital lending potentially hurts publishers’ profits in the e-book licensing market, rather than on how publishers’ costly ebook licensing potentially harms readers” – that’s how one report summed up the hearing. This, of course, is only one stage in the proceedings, and the final decision is not expected for quite some time – it’s perhaps months away, or may even be announced in 2025. Meanwhile, lawyers for IA, including one from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tried hard to see some silver lining here. That the judges deliberated for an hour and a half instead of 20 minutes, is interpreted as them being “engaged” and “getting it” (namely, the big picture). Here’s hoping. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Internet Archive Defends Digital Lending in Court appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Read the original post "Canning Chili" on A Modern Homestead. Learn how easy canning chili can be with this safe-canning recipe! Having full jars of home-canned chili on the shelf is a wonderful way to store beef at room temperature, while also having an easy meal ready to heat at any moment! We love being able to reach into the pantry and grab a jar... Read More The post "Canning Chili" appeared first on A Modern Homestead.

Marvel Erases Superhero's Jewish Identity in Upcoming 'Captain America' Film

Slate: Republicans Aren't Dark; They Are Joyful

Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), a staunch free speech advocate, has been announced as GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s running mate, potentially placing First Amendment issues at the forefront of the 2024 election. “We need strong Republicans to stand up to the censorship industrial complex,” Vance wrote in a 2022 X post.  He also publicly critiqued a harsh censorship bill in Ireland and condemned Big Tech censorship online. In May, Vance himself was censored. “You can't make this up: Mailchimp suspended my press team’s account after we announced President Trump’s support for the Railway Safety Act,” Vance wrote. “But big tech censorship won't stop us from fighting for the people of East Palestine.” The latter refers to the toxic spill accident in an Ohio town, to which the government has been accused of giving a delayed and insufficient response. Mailchimp later told MRC’s CensorTrack that Vance’s account was reinstated. Furthermore, Vance bashed a 2022 Biden White House claim that “social media and media platforms … proliferate [Covid-19] disinformation.” He posted on X, “These guys are just laying the groundwork for a more aggressive and punitive censorship regime.” Vance also stood for free speech abroad, as he criticized the Ukrainian government last September for a campaign targeting purported Russian “propagandists.” Similarly, in a December letter to Irish United Nations Ambassador Geraldine Byrne Nason, Vance slammed the infamous Irish “hate speech” Criminal Justice Bill 2022.  “I write to express concern about legislation pending in the Oireachtas [aka the Irish parliament] that could undermine Ireland’s commitment to universally prized freedoms, including the freedom of speech," Vance wrote. "Given that President [Éamon] de Valera himself was imprisoned for sedition in 1918, I urge your government to consider the impact of this legislation on Ireland’s proud tradition of free speech.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Former Biden White House communications director and CNN contributor Kate Bedingfield proved unable Monday to refrain from employing the kind of violent rhetoric that many suspect originally set the stage for the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Bedingfield was on a panel commenting on the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee when CNN talking head Anderson Cooper showed a clip from President Joe Biden's recent interview with NBC News' Lester Holt. In the clip, Biden complained that the press had broken with tradition and finally discussed his decrepitude rather than continuing to lay into his opponent. "Why don't you guys ever talk about the 18 to 28 lies he told?" Biden asked Holt. "Where are you on this? Why didn't the press ever talk about that? 28 times. ... I had a bad, bad night. I wasn't feeling well at all. And I had been — well, I'm not going to make any — I screwed up." 'That was not the phrase that I meant.' Cooper subsequently wondered why Biden had himself proven incapable of pushing back against Trump's supposed lies during the debate, then noted recent polling that "does not look good" for Biden. Bedingfield seized upon Cooper's comments as an opportunity to talk Democratic strategy, emphasizing that Biden has made clear he is "not going to step down." "So, at some point Democrats have to decide that they want to try to win this election and turn their fire on Donald Trump," added Bedingfield. Bedingfield immediately realized that her natural choice of militaristic language with regard to Trump was imprudent, especially just days after a radical literally turned his fire on the former president. "I shouldn't have said 'turn their fire.' I apologize," Bedingfield said as the other panelists chuckled amongst themselves. "That was not the phrase that I meant. They need to turn their focus on Donald Trump." The "War Room" account for the Trump campaign highlighted Bedingfield's comments, noting, "Former top Biden staffer and current CNN contributor Kate Bedingfield just said Democrats need to 'turn their fire on Donald Trump' — days after a deranged lunatic shot him in a failed assassination attempt. Democrats just can't help themselves." Bedingfield replied, "I immediately caught myself and apologized — it was intended as a turn of phrase to mean focus on him, but I agree it's absolutely inappropriate in this moment." Former Acting Director of U.S. National Intelligence Richard Grenell clapped back, writing, "Not only in this moment." While Bedingfield apparently managed to keep from publicly slipping up for at least one full day following the rally shooting, some of her fellow travelers alternatively wasted no time vilifying Trump. The New York Times' print edition of Sunday Opinion ran an op-ed Sunday condemning the wounded Republican, stating in bold on a dark, full page depicting a silhouette of Trump's head, "He failed the tests of leadership and betrayed America. Voters must reject him." 'We urge voters to see the dangers of a second Trump term.' The op-ed from the Times' editorial board, first published digitally last week, claimed that Trump is a man "as demonstrably unsuited for the office of president as any to run in the long history of the Republic, a man whose values, temperament, ideas and language are directly opposed to so much of what has made this country great." According the piece advanced by the Times in print just hours after Trump was shot and after his supporter, the heroic former fire chief Corey Comperatore, was murdered, "He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him." The Times' editorial board added, "We urge voters to see the dangers of a second Trump term clearly and to reject it." Kathleen Kingsbury, the Times' opinions editor, suggested in an essay that "there is no connection between our prior decision to run this editorial package in print and Saturday’s incident — we would have changed our plans if we could have," reported the New York Post. While the timing of the Times' op-ed may have been accidental, MSNBC analyst David Corn's vilification of Trump Sunday in the leftist blog Mother Jones was fully intentional. Corn stressed, "Only one of the candidates in the 2024 contest incited a violent assault on the US Capitol to overturn an election and still threatens American democracy. What happened in Butler, Pennsylvania, does not change that." CNN commentator, former Jan. 6 committee member, and Biden booster Adam Kinzinger wrote roughly 24 hours after Trump was shot, "The Trump campaign and surrogates will try to intimidate Biden supporters from going after the former President politically. Do not let up. Trump is a threat to democracy and he must be stopped." Sunday afternoon, Vox published an article entitled, "Yes, it's still fair to call Trump a threat to democracy." "In the wake of this weekend's assassination attempt, however, some have called on partisans to do more than this: They have suggested that we must not merely condemn violence, but also avoid rhetoric that could hypothetically inspire it," wrote Vox's Eric Levitz. Levitz figured he'd instead double down, writing, "Donald Trump really does present a threat to the norms of liberal democracy and the welfare of millions of US residents." Levitz was joined in attacking Trump over the weekend by former George W. Bush speechwriter and Atlantic editor David Frum. Frum wrote, "Fascist movements are secular religions. Like all religions, they offer martyrs as their proof of truth. ... The Trump movement now improves on that: The leader himself will be the martyr in chief, his own blood the basis for his bid for power and vengeance." "Those who stand against Trump and his allies must find the will and the language to explain why these crimes, past and planned, are all wrong, all intolerable — and how the gunman and Trump, at their opposite ends of a bullet's trajectory, are nonetheless joined together as common enemies of law and democracy," added Frum. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk said he was moving two of his major companies out of California after the state's Democrats passed an extremist law against parental notification from public schools regarding gender and sexual orientation. Democrats praised the passage of AB1955 after California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed the law that would ban schools from requiring notification of parents of a gender change or sexual orientation change. Proponents said the law would prevent violence, while opponents said the law erodes the rights of parents. Musk responded by calling it the last straw for him in California. "This is the final straw. Because of this law and the many others that preceded it, attacking both families and companies, SpaceX will now move its HQ from Hawthorne, California, to Starbase, Texas," wrote Musk on X, the platform he owns that was formerly known as Twitter. "And ? HQ will move to Austin," he added in a second tweet. "Have had enough of dodging gangs of violent drug addicts just to get in and out of the building," Musk had previously criticized the LGBTQ+ movement after his biologically male son Xavier legally separated from the billionaire and sought a legal name change to Vivian Jenna Wilson. Musk says Wilson cut off all communication with him and that he heard about the gender switch through a second-hand source. "She went beyond socialism to being a full communist and thinking that anyone rich is evil," Musk reportedly explained. Legal experts said that the law will likely face legal challenges for years, but it could also encourage other Democrat-controlled legislatures to pass similar laws. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A 10-year-old foster child in Indiana died days after the morbidly obese woman he temporarily was living with allegedly sat on him until he no longer had a pulse. Officials said the boy pleaded with a neighbor to adopt him just 30 minutes before first responders arrived at the scene.The heartbreaking tale begins more than five years ago when Dakota Levi Stevens and his sister were placed in the foster-care system because their parents were addicted to drugs. It seems that Dakota bounced around several foster-care placements during his young life. He also suffered from mental health and anxiety issues, according to a foster father who cared for Dakota from 2019 to 2021.When Wilson saw that his eyelids were pale, she instructed one of her three children — all of whom were adopted out of foster care — to call 911.In 2022, Dakota landed in the home of Jennifer Lee Wilson but later left. When Dakota began acting up at a foster home earlier this year, he was placed back into Wilson's home for short-term respite care.On April 25, Dakota, then 10 years old, fled the home that Wilson shared with her husband and three children in Valparaiso in northwestern Indiana. Dakota reportedly ran to a neighbor's house and begged the woman there to adopt him because his foster parents were abusing him.When Wilson discovered that the boy was missing, she drove around looking for him. She spotted him speaking with the neighbor. Initially, Dakota refused to get into Wilson's car and asked the neighbor to call police, the neighbor claimed, adding that if the boy had injuries, she did not see them.Wilson eventually coaxed Dakota into the car and suggested that the neighbor mind her own business. As soon as she and Dakota pulled into the driveway at home, though, Dakota's behavior continued, and he insisted he would run away again.What allegedly happened next cost Dakota his life.Wilson later told police that she did not recall whether the two fell to the ground together or whether she tackled him, but at some point, Wilson reportedly pinned the boy down in full view of the front-door Ring camera.At first, she reportedly held him down by laying across his neck and head area. She then allegedly held him down by the arm. Finally, Wilson — who stands less than 5 feet tall and tips the scales at 340 pounds — sat on the boy near his buttocks and remained there for six minutes and 48 seconds, Ring footage allegedly showed.During this time, Wilson called Dakota's caseworker with Children's Protective Services, and at one point, she allegedly stated, "I was laying on him, and he was acting bad."Eventually, Dakota's screams ceased, and after nearly seven minutes of sitting on the boy, Wilson discovered that Dakota apparently was no longer breathing."Are you faking?" she asked, according to court documents.When Wilson saw that his eyelids were pale, she instructed one of her three children — all of whom were adopted out of foster care — to call 911. She also attempted CPR.After not finding a pulse, first responders rushed Dakota to South Bend Memorial Hospital, where he died two days later. An autopsy revealed that he had suffered mechanical asphyxia, and the medical examiner ruled his death a homicide.On Friday, the Porter County Prosecutor’s office announced that Wilson, 48, had been charged with reckless homicide, a level 5 felony that carries a sentence of up to six years behind bars and a fine of up to $10,000.Wilson was soon arrested and assessed a bond of $20,000. Jail records indicate that she is not currently in custody.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

WATCH: You Are NOT Ready for the Japanese Anime of Trump's Attempted Assassination (LOL)