We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A Real American President: Donald Trump -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (291847)7/21/2021 6:09:43 PM
From: FJB4 Recommendations

Recommended By
Sr K

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 331488
BOMBSHELL: Joe Biden Used a Private Email Account to Send Hunter Government Documents

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Hillary Clinton’s private email server cast a dark shadow over her 2016 presidential campaign, as it became clear she used the private server to thwart government transparency laws and then went to great lengths to destroy evidence—even that which was under subpoena.

It turns out she wasn’t the only one using a private email.

According to emails found on Hunter Biden’s laptop, Joe Biden used a private email account to send his son Hunter Biden information from the State Department, according to Just The News, which has reviewed some of the emails.

While some of the emails were personal in nature, “others were political in nature, and still others clearly addressed business matters, often forwarding information coming from senior officials in the White House, the State Department and other government agencies.”

Hunter Biden was serving on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings while then-Vice President Biden was the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine matters. Joe Biden infamously bragged about his role in the firing of Ukraine prosecutor Viktor Shokin back in 2016. Shokin was investigating corruption at Burisma Holdings. Biden told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko he would withhold a $1 billion loan unless Poroshenko fired Shokin—an indisputable quid pro quo.

It is not yet clear if Biden discussed Burisma or Ukraine matters with Hunter via this private account.

Related: The DOJ Is Investigating Hunter Biden, But ‘The Big Guy’ Nominated TWO DOJ Lawyers With Hunter Ties

Biden’s private email address was confirmed by a former senior Obama administration official who told Just The News that some administration officials knew of the private address and that he used it from time to time. “I saw it used to communicate with his family and friends or to pass information to them,” the official said.

Current Secretary of State Tony Blinken was also aware of the private email account.

Like Hillary Clinton, Biden’s use of a private email address raises questions about violations of federal law, as any emails involving government business are meant to be preserved for the federal record.

“The Presidential Records Act required Joe Biden to make sure that any of his gmail account emails, including these emails to Hunter Biden, were forwarded to a government account so they could properly be handled by the National Archives,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told Just The News. “No wonder the Obama White House wanted to protect Hillary Clinton from the consequences of [her] email shell game!”

“We might know more beginning next year, when Judicial Watch and the public can begin filing FOIAs for Obama White House emails,” Fitton added.

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (291847)7/21/2021 7:28:18 PM
From: FJB6 Recommendations

Recommended By
Sr K
Tom Clarke

and 1 more member

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 331488
BREAKING: Judge Orders California to Include Larry Elder on Recall Election Ballot


AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez
Late Wednesday afternoon, attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon announced that a California judge has ordered Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber to include Republican Larry Elder on the final ballot for the September 14 gubernatorial recall election.

The ruling applies to two concurrent suits brought against Weber to remedy the fact that Elder was left off Monday’s preliminary list of candidate names. Dhillon and her colleague attorney Mark Meuser represented California voter Betty Chu while Larry Elder was represented by attorney Steve Baric:

The hearing in the Larry Elder and voter Betty Tom Chu matters (my firm represents the latter) may be seen here:

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) July 21, 2021

The judge opened the hearing “with a tentative ruling that the tax return disclosure requirement doesn’t seem to apply to recall elections,” tweeted Dhillon, “and if it did, Larry Elder substantially complied with it.”

Related: Larry Elder Comes Out Swinging, “We Will See Them in Court

It was noted that Elder provided the secretary of state’s office with more than 300 pages of both personal and corporate financial documents when he submitted his candidate papers. His attorneys argued that the redaction portion of the election statute is there to protect the candidate’s privacy. So why does the state care how it was redacted or not?

“The court’s tentative [ruling] covers the matter [for Betty Chu] and [Elder] will respond if necessary,” said Dhillon, citing Meuser. Meanwhile, the State’s lawyer argued that the recall election should be run the same way as other elections. The judge did not agree and issued the inclusion order:

Judge orders California to include Larry Elder on the ballot in California recall election. Says tax returns were never required in the first place for a recall as opposed to a primary election.

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) July 21, 2021

The ruling means Larry Elder’s name will be included on the final candidate list later today and the final list will then be sent to the printer as per state law. The election to recall California’s Governor Gavin Newsom will be held on September 14.

For everyone–except the secretary of state, her lawyer, and the Democrats–this order is a win. It’s definitely a win for The Sage of South Central who has the constitutional right to be on the ballot and for California voters, who have the right to have qualified candidates to choose from in September.

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (291847)7/21/2021 7:32:09 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 331488
Court Strikes Down Calif. Law Mandating Transgender Pronouns

BY TYLER O'NEIL JUL 21, 2021 4:09 PM ET

Share Tweet

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
On Friday, a California appeals court struck down part of Senate Bill 219 (enacted in 2017), which required staffers in elder care facilities to use the preferred pronouns of transgender residents or patients. The court ruled that the transgender mandate, codified in Health and Safety Code section 1439.51, violates the free speech rights of elder care staff. The court rejected a challenge to another aspect of the law, however.

“Content-based laws are presumptively unconstitutional and are subject to strict scrutiny,” Judge Elena Duarte wrote for herself and two other judges in Taking Offense v. California (2021). “The pronoun provision at issue here tests the limits of the government’s authority to restrict pure speech that, while potentially offensive or harassing to the listener, does not necessarily create a hostile environment.”

Duarte ruled that while California has a compelling state interest in preventing discrimination at elder care facilities, the transgender pronoun mandate did not use the least restrictive means to achieve that end.

Duarte cited the Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling in NIFLA v. Becerra (2018), in which the State of California attempted to force crisis pregnancy centers (many of which are pro-life) to advertise abortion. Then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) argued that this compelled pro-abortion speech did not really violate the First Amendment because it involved applying professional standards in a health care setting.

Recommended: University’s Transgender Pronoun Policy May Have Violated the First Amendment, Court Rules

While the current attorney general, Rob Bonta, does not appear to have resurrected the “professional speech” arguments of his predecessor, he did argue that forcing elder care staff to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns did not constitute government compelled speech. The court rejected this argument.

“The law compels long-term care facility staff to alter the message they would prefer to convey, either by hosting a message as required by the resident or by refraining from using pronouns at all,” Judge Duarte wrote. “Generally, the free speech clause protects a wide variety of speech a listener may find offensive, including insulting speech based on race, national origin, or religious beliefs.”

Just as NIFLA involved a case of government compelling pro-life pregnancy centers to endorse abortion, so this law requires elder care staff who may disagree with transgender identity to nonetheless endorse a transgender patient’s gender identity. “If an employee’s speech repeatedly and willfully misgenders a long-term care facility resident, the speech is criminalized,” Duarte explained.

While Bonta argued that staff who disagree with transgender identity may simply remain silent, the judge ruled that “for purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between a law compelling an employee to utter a resident’s preferred pronoun and prohibiting an employee from uttering a pronoun the resident does not prefer.”

“We recognize that misgendering may be disrespectful, discourteous, and insulting, and used as an inartful way to express an ideological disagreement with another person’s expressed gender identity. But the First Amendment does not protect only speech that inoffensively and artfully articulates a person’s point of view,” Judge Duarte ruled.

The judge ruled that the pronoun provision in the law “restricts more speech than is necessary to achieve the government’s compelling interest in eliminating discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of sex. Rather than prohibiting conduct and speech amounting to actionable harassment or discrimination as those terms are legally defined, the law criminalizes even occasional, isolated, off-hand instances of willful misgendering– provided there has been at least one prior instance–without requiring that such occasional instances of misgendering amount to harassing or discriminatory conduct.”

While the judges reached the right conclusion on free speech grounds, they expressed far too much deference for transgender orthodoxy in the ruling. Duarte described disagreement with transgender orthodoxy as “disagreement with the concept that a person’s gender identity may be different from the sex the person was assigned at birth.” Such a definition overlooks the fact that biological sex is not a matter of “assignment” at birth but a matter of chromosomes dating back to the moment of conception, a DNA blueprint that determines biology throughout life. Those who oppose transgender orthodoxy do not disagree with claims about gender identity — they merely disagree with the absurd suggestion that gender identity erases or somehow supersedes biological sex.

Even so, the judges rightly noted that transgenderism and transgender pronouns are a controversial topic on which the government has no business compelling a form of orthodoxy.

As the Supreme Court wrote in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”