'GOP voters have a substantial victory'

'There might not be any OnlyFans'

Police initially administered Narcan on the scene unsuccessfully

Rest in peace

'It's a real honor'

'The cost could fluctuate'

Start Quiz For many of us, Disney characters were the backbone of our childhood. They were our role models and helped teach us the difference between right and wrong. Beauty And The Beast and The Little Mermaid are classics, and you may be able to name the main characters, but what about the animated characters who played the supporting roles? These little birds and flying horses have names, too! Source

Site has no Description

Many things human come in pairs. Eyes, ears, hands, feet, and lungs appear in twos. Even a single nose features two nostrils. In this context, America’s new, two-track justice system might be perfectly natural: One for the Left—in which they suffer few consequences, if any, for their misdeeds—and one for the Right, in which arrests, trials, and prison sentences are routine. After the Supreme Court’s current term ends later this month, masons should spend this summer re-chiseling the marble above its columns. Out with “Equal Justice Under Law.” In with “Bipolar Justice for All!” Black Lives Matter and Antifa thugs on the Left spent the summer of 2020 yanking statues from pedestals, torching police precincts, and otherwise unleashing total mayhem. Then-Sen. Kamala Harris promoted a legal-defense fund to free arrestees. Few paid any price for the “fiery but mostly peaceful” George Floyd riots. A peaceful demonstrator shares his opinion at a Black Lives Matter march on June 14, 2020, in Los Angeles. Few, if any, of his more violent BLM compatriots suffered any legal consequences for their anything but “mostly peaceful” actions after the killing of George Floyd less than three weeks earlier. (Photo: Rodin Eckenroth/Getty Images) The Jan. 6 hoodlums on the Right who shattered windows and smashed doors to breach the U.S. Capitol deserve serious prison time. But other protesters naively entered after Capitol Police waved them in. “Hey, look. It’s open house!” some might have thought. Many of these accidental tourists are in huge trouble. Arkansas’ Daniel Hatcher entered the Capitol, snapped some photos for two minutes, and walked out. The FBI arrested Hatcher in Little Rock last Feb. 13. He now faces federal charges. Left-wing Deep State functionaries John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Peter Strzok, and Andrew Weissmann advanced the Russia Hoax, which bedeviled the Trump administration and divided America for three years. Each of these men scored a book contract and a TV deal. Literally. On the Right, Russiagate ensnared Trump aides Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, Gen. Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone. All were sentenced to prison. Trump pardoned Flynn and Stone. Gates served house arrest. Manafort and Papadopoulos went to the slammer. The quintessence of these two systems involves 2016’s presidential nominees and how they separately tried to influence that election. On the Left, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign paid $175,000 to Democratic law firm Perkins Coie, which engaged opposition-research shop Fusion GPS. It hired former British spy Christopher Steele. He wrote a baseless “Dirty Dossier” that hallucinated ties between Trump and the Kremlin. Team Clinton leaked this fraudulent report, which BuzzFeed published. And the Russia Hoax was off to the races. On the Right, Trump was accused of reimbursing his then-attorney, Michael Cohen, for paying porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to clam up about an alleged affair with Trump that both of them have denied. As former Justice Department official John B. Daukas wrote in the American Spectator: “So, Hillary Clinton is found to be liable for mislabeling payments for the Steele Dossier as legal fees and gets an $8,000 civil fine; Trump has been found guilty of mislabeling nondisclosure payments as legal fees and is a convicted felon.” As Yogi Berra might have said: “Only in America.” Clinton went on to write books, deliver lectures, and whine loudly about why she lost to a real-estate magnate and TV personality on his first political campaign. Notwithstanding emotional scars, she is out a whopping eight grand. Trump, meanwhile, endured a six-week trial that kept him off the campaign trail for four days each week, cost him undisclosed millions in—not to coin a phrase—legal expenses, and added abundant stress to his already high-pressure life. He awaits sentencing on July 11 and could receive four years for each of the 34 counts on which he was convicted. Total: 136 years in the big house. But is this really so wrong? If good things come in pairs, perhaps this applies to justice. Rather than complain about two paths to justice, one Left and one Right, maybe conservatives should celebrate this development. After all, the truth about pectoral muscles also might apply to justice systems: “One is not enough, and three are too many.” We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Just One Justice System? Why Not Two? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. X has decided to petition the US Supreme Court in an ongoing legal battle between the company behind the social media platform that succeeded Twitter, and Jack Smith, special counsel in the US Department of Justice (DoJ). We obtained a copy of the petition for you here. The case concerns a warrant requested by Smith and granted by a district court in January 2023 to access private data on Twitter servers belonging to President Donald Trump, which he sent and received while he was still president. The information Smith sought – as part of his investigation into Trump’s role concerning the January 6 events – included draft posts and direct messages. And, Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia also approved a non-disclosure order, meaning that X was banned from informing anyone, Trump included, about the warrant’s existence. X attempted to avoid compliance with the warrant, citing First Amendment concerns, which resulted in a $350,000 fine – a punishment the District Court supported. The company’s petition now before the Supreme Court presented the lower court’s decisions, and its own interpretations of the consequences of those decisions, which X Corp claims to set a precedent by letting the government deny a former president the chance to assert privilege over his private communications. X also believes that this can allow the government to invade other privileges, like attorney-client or journalist-source, by means of obtaining communications data from third parties and issuing gag orders. The petition asks the Supreme Court if an electronic communications service provider “can be compelled to produce potentially privileged user communications before adjudication of the provider’s First Amendment challenge to a nondisclosure order that prohibits it from notifying the user and before the user had notice and an opportunity to assert privilege, including executive privilege.” The second question put before the court is if the First Amendment allows gag orders to be issued to a provider “in a highly public investigation.” X further wants to know if this is permitted when said investigation is taking place when the government “does not (a) demonstrate that disclosure would jeopardize the investigation’s integrity; or (b) disprove the workability of a less-restrictive alternative, such as disclosure to a representative designated by a former president to assert executive privilege on his behalf.” Although the District Court ruled that it was acceptable not to give Trump the opportunity to use executive privilege, four judges criticized the decision to approve the gag order. One of them, Naomi Rao, said at the time that Jack Smith “obscured and bypassed any assertion of executive privilege and dodged the careful balance Congress struck in the Presidential Records Act.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Elon Musk’s X Asks Supreme Court To Review Trump Warrant and Nondisclosure Order, Citing First Amendment Concerns appeared first on Reclaim The Net.