Some Shared Post

 

JUST IN: Longshore Union President Who Pledged to “CRIPPLE” the United States, Owns 76-Ft Yacht, Bentley, Is Paid Almost 1 MILLION Per Year, Body of His Co-Defendant In RICO Case Was Found Decomposing In Trunk [VIDEO]

 Americans have been warned to stock up on food, gas, and necessary items for several weeks. Many claim massive shortages of items we use every day will occur due to a looming strike by the ILA (International Longshore Association).

On Sept. 27, US Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene warned about the ramifications of a strike in a tweet. Rep. Greene claims, “It’s very important to understand how critical this is given that America is now in a $36 billion dollar food trade deficit for the first time in our nation’s history.

Also, the Biden-Harris administration and congressional out-of-control spending have driven inflation so high that many Americans can’t afford quality of life.

I think this situation is serious and, depending on whether they strike and how long it lasts, could be a crisis going into the election, holidays, and winter.

Retailers have been trying to stock up in preparation, but it’s always smart to be personally prepared just in case.”

Yesterday, the International Longshore Association, headed up by a union boss who’s threatened to “cripple” America’s economy, which many economists are warning is already in a recession, endorsed Kamala Harris.

Today, the ILA announced they would follow through on their threat to strike.

  

CNBC shared some of the key points on the massive strike, which include:

• 50,000 ILA union longshoremen who walked off the job at East Coast and Gulf Coast ports from New England to Texas starting at 12:01 a.m. ET on Tuesday after failing to reach an agreement with port ownership on a new contract. This was the union’s first strike since 1977.
• Between 43% and 49% of all U.S. imports and billions of dollars in trade monthly move through the U.S. East Coast and Gulf ports.
• The International Longshoremen’s Association, the largest maritime union in North America, said in a Tuesday statement from ILA president Harold Daggett that it wants a $5 an hour per year increase over six years, all royalties for containers handled, and strict language against automation. The union had rejected an offer from the port management group USMX on Monday that included a wage hike over six years near 50%.

Truckers who were interviewed about the longshoreman strike are warned, “it’s the last thing we need right now.” With the current recession that’s not being talked about, truckers are concerned about the effect of the ILA strike.

So, what do we know about the ILA President Harold Daggett, who appears to be holding the cards to crippling the U.S. economy?

The New York Post reported on Mr. Daggett today, and their report of the ILA boss was less than flattering.

Fiery union boss Harold Daggett has long cast himself as a staunch advocate for blue-collar workers, even as he has lived in luxury, owning a yacht and driving a Bentley — and fought off alleged ties to the Mafia.

Sporting a polo shirt with a chunky gold medallion around his neck, the 78-year-old Daggett, who as president of the International Longshoremen’s Association is leading the port strikes stretching from Maine to Texas, was prone to theatrical flourishes in a September interview as he geared up for the strike.

“They’re gonna be like this,” Daggett said, grabbing his neck in a choking gesture. “I’ll cripple you. I will cripple you and you have no idea what that means. Nobody does.” 

According to the New York Post, Daggett has worked at the ILA for 57 years and took the helm as president in 2011 — raked in $728,000 in compensation last year from the ILA.

He collected another $173,000 as president emeritus of a local union branch, according to labor department filings.

According to Zillow and NJ Property Records, he lives in a 7,136-square-foot house valued at $1.7 million on a 10-acre lot in Sparta, New Jersey.

Watch:

Elon Musk may have just helped the world to understand better who Mr. Daggett is with one simple retweet of Max Meyer, editor of Arena Magazine, who, only two hours ago, tweeted:

Trending: WATCH: Dan Bongino Reveals Shocking New Information About Biden White House Cocaine Scandal #CocaineGate

Harold Daggett, the ILA boss who pledged to “cripple” the United States, owns a 76-foot yacht, a Bentley, and gets paid over $900,000.

He was acquitted on RICO charges after the main witness against him, mobster Lawrence Ricci, was found decomposing in a car trunk in New Jersey.

Meyer’s tweet included two screenshots with stunning information about the man the US government has accused of being tied to the mafia.

Blue collar credentials

Mr Daggett is a figure whose long union career has been shrouded in controversy. A third
generation ILA member, the longshoreman has worked for the union for 57 years, becoming the
international president in July 2011.

Despite his eminent blue-collar credentials, the union baron earned $728,000 last year from the
ILA, plus another $173,000 as president emeritus of a local union branch, Politico reported.
He previously owned a 76-foot yacht, the Obsession, and has been spotted by his members riding
in a Bentley, according to The New York Times.

The Justice Department, which has reportedly lost two cases against Mr Daggett, has accused him
of being an “associate” of the Genovese crime family——one of the infamous “five families” of the US Mafia.

In another screenshot, Meyer included the following information on the ILA boss:

Charged with racketeering in 2005, Mr Daggett, took the witness stand and portrayed himself as a mob
target, despite evidence against him from a turncoat Mafia enforcer saying he was under the mob’s control,
the New York Times reported.

During that trial, one of Mr Daggett’s co-defendants, a renowned mobster named Lawrence Ricci,
disappeared. His decomposing body was found in the trunk of a car outside a New Jersey diner several
weeks later, with the killing still unsolved.

Despite his union serving as a historic symbol of the grip of organised crime on union members, as
depicted in the 1954 film “On the Waterfront’, Mr Daggett was acquitted in both cases.
The union leader has previously criticised the Waterfront Commission, set up to combat Mafia control of
the port, calling the allegations of mob influence “total bulls—“, and a “dark, ugly attack on Italian Americans.”

Here is the tweet:

Wow https://t.co/ryimhzyj0b

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 1, 2024

Musk’s response to this shocking revelation was summed up by one word, “Wow!”

Here’s how Joe Biden responded today when reporters asked him about the strike, as his wife Jill, who apparently, has given up on protecting him from the media, walks briskly away:

Elon Musk likely speaks for the majority of Americans who are sick and tired of watching dues of hard-working union members enriching their fat-cat bosses who make deals with Democrats behind the scenes to endorse them and keep their campaign coffers filled while they screw everyday Americans.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/just-longshore-union-president-who-pledged-cripple-united/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/former-bill-clinton-aide-doug-schoen-speechless-kamala/

Free Fuellmich, the Unsung Hero Who Called Out the ‘Plandemic’

 Covid was to convenient for the Marxist Authoritarian Left

This is one of the very few websites where you will read this story. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a leading attorney, has been under arrest in Germany for almost a year now. From the silence in the mainstream media, it would seem he is a dangerous spy whose arrest cannot be made public. Try Google, and sparse details emerge. A Vice article that declares him a “conspiracy theorist” provides almost nothing of his side of the story, a right normally accorded even to gangsters and murderers.

So, who is Fuellmich? What has he done to be held in jail? And why is the media ignoring his case? Fuellmich is a German attorney who had a flourishing practice for over 20 years. He also has a license to practice in California. In 2009, his law firm was ranked among Germany’s top 20 for investor protection. He also played a major role in the Volkswagen emissions scandal and the Kuehne+Nagel bribery case.

What has brought the authorities’ wrath upon him is his spearheading “Nurenberg 2.0,” a movement to sue the elite who orchestrated the Covid-19 pandemic as part of the Great Reset. Fuellmich was a co-founder of the German Corona Investigative Committee (GCIC).  This non-government committee probed the virus’s spread, its actual danger, the PCR test’s reliability, and how much damage the anti-pandemic measures (including the vaccine) caused.

The committee also investigated if measures such as lockdowns, masking, social distancing, and quarantine protected people from Covid-19 or just caused panic so that Big Pharma could generate huge profits on the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests, and vaccines. As is well-known, independent scientists have cast doubt on the efficacy of the PCR test, saying it has at least ten major flaws.

Image: Video screen grab.

The committee had received donations from many sources. Since members were afraid that governments might freeze the funds, it was decided to buy and hold gold worth a million euros. As another safekeeping measure, Fuellmich and another committee member, Viviane Fischer, withdrew funds as private, secured loans from the committee. Fuellmich, who borrowed €700,000 (about $782,000), was to pay it back by selling his house. Both, the gold purchase and the loans were clearly documented.

Some committee associates have charged Fuellmich with embezzling the amount he took on loan—even though (or perhaps because) the sale proceeds from his house (€1.158 million) ended up in the account of one of his accusers, Marcel Templin. Another charge is that the gold purchase was without the committee shareholders’ knowledge. Again, the purchase is documented, and the gold cannot be sold without both Fuellmich’s and Fischer’s signatures. Fischer has now turned against him. An additional charge, which the prosecutor later added, is that his law firm obtained €15,000 in emergency aid during the pandemic by submitting false information.

Fuellmich was unceremoniously arrested last year in Mexico, where he was with his wife, Inka. They had lost their passports, so the embassy asked them to collect fresh ones on October 12 last year. When they arrived, Inka was given her passport and allowed to go, but Fuellmich was picked up by six men and brought to Germany via the U.S. 

An arrest warrant was served against him only after he was brought to Germany. This was because there was no international warrant against him. Besides, he had not been notified, as required, of the warrants that Germany and the E.U. issued. Any court would have declared the arrest illegal and ordered action against those who took him into custody. But that has not happened. Clearly, a long-planned game is being played out.

Coverage of the court proceedings in Göttingen by Bam!News (available here and here) shows reason to suspect that Fuellmich has been set up and that the squabbles leading to the litigation are an act of sabotage. In fact, during the trial, Fuellmich testified that two of his accusers are infiltrators.

The details of the proceedings are shocking. At one point, Fuellmich’s defense lawyer presented a leaked document showing that either the BKA (the federal criminal police office) or the BNA (the internal intelligence service) worked to set him up. It’s not clear which agency, as the last two letters of the acronym are redacted. The document claims that Fuellmich is a “dangerous personality” owing to his “considerable following” and a “threat to public security and democratic order.”

In a statement from jail this July, Fuellmich says the security agencies have influenced the presiding judge and other members of the court. Therefore, the judges are hearing only the prosecution witnesses. They refuse to hear the defense witnesses brought to refute the charges against Fuellmich. The most recent news is that the trial continues and Fuellmich remains in detention.

As the West descends into the abyss of totalitarianism, Western governments are increasingly silencing, persecuting and imprisoning those heroes of truth and liberty who speak out against the degradations of our liberties and the proliferation of false narratives designed by a globalist oligarchy intent on destroying Western civilization.

Among the valiant paladins of the resistance who have suffered incarceration are former White House chief strategist and media executive Steven K. Bannon; former law school professor and dean, John Eastman; and former aide to President Trump, Peter Navarro. There are others, too numerous to mention.

Fuellmich stands tall in that pantheon of heroes. His committee interviewed over 150 experts—doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists, intelligence operatives, judges, and even former members of the WHO—and came to the following shocking conclusions:

1. With a survival rate of 99.97%, Covid-19 was no more dangerous than the common flu, did not cause excess mortality, and children were at no risk from the coronavirus. Research by Stanford professor and physician-researcher John Ioannides found that mortality was equivalent to that of the seasonal flu and that people were unnecessarily driven to panic.


2. The PCR tests were unreliable and were used to prove mass infection. According to former Pfizer vice-president and biotech leader Dr Michael Yeadon, the false positive rate was 89-94%.


3. The mandates, including lockdowns, had no impact on the incidence of Covid. Sweden, with its laissez-faire approach, and Britain, with its strict approach, had comparable rates of disease and mortality.


4. There were credible reports worldwide of doctors and hospitals receiving financial incentives for declaring deceased patients Covid victims.


5. Healthcare systems were never in danger of being overwhelmed. Many hospitals were empty. An example: the Hospital Ship Comfort, anchored outside New York City, took in no more than 20 patients when it could have accommodated 1,000.


6. The Covid mandates were designed to destroy regional economies, create dependence on global supply chains, reduce population, and install a world government under the aegis of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the U.N.

Fuellmich and some of his committed colleagues resolutely worked to identify the guilty parties, including many financial, pharma, and tech companies. They were determined to prosecute them under criminal law and sue them for civil damages through a class action lawsuit. An international network of lawyers was to take up the cases and present the overwhelming evidence from experts. Live streaming would ensure that the public would decide on the political consequences for world leaders complicit in the global “plandemic.” So Fuellmich had to be stopped and stopped he was.

In his statement from prison, Fuellmich says, “In reality, it is freedom of expression and justice that are under attack here. Two pillars of democracy. Two pillars we will defend to the end.” If you agree with Dr Reiner Fuellmich and refuse to surrender freedom to fear and false narratives, please sign the petition to free him.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/10/free_fuellmich_the_unsung_hero_who_called_out_the_plandemic.html

Actually, Social Security can go bankrupt

 It has been more than 40 years since Congress found common ground on Social Security and implemented a series of necessary reforms. Over that time, the discussion of Social Security has devolved into a shouting match, an exchange of emotionally charged hyperbole in which sound bites have become more important than stone cold facts.

This environment is great for politicians who wish to duck and weave the issue with impunity, less so for the rest of us, because nothing gets done and the problem gets worse. Voters need to think about the role they play in the do-nothing politics of Washington, D.C. 

Social Security is the most predictable crisis in human history. We have talked about benefit cuts in the mid-2030s for years. As a result of all the talk and no action, about half of Americans 80-years-old today will outlive the system’s ability to pay scheduled benefits. In fact, nearly half of these people will live long enough to see Social Security serve as their sole source of income. 

The unplanned reductions of benefits pose a significant problem, and policymakers should be on top of such a gloomy prospect. Unfortunately, the goal of politics at the moment isn’t to solve this enormous issue, one threatening to touch every American family in some way, shape, or form. 

The point of modern politics is to get individuals to believe sufficiently in the merit of prospective policy solutions so that Americans are willing to share their belief on social media with their network of other voters. Every time they share content from a politician with their community, the information comes with the imprimatur of trust. We the people are the Walter Cronkite of the internet age.

Without some boundary of fact on the discussion, there is nothing to herd the cats of Congress to a productive end. So, the debate over the future of Social Security runs in a continuous spin cycle.

To illustrate the problem, there is a dueling narrative that Social Security will go bankrupt versus the rival claim that even in a worst-case scenario, Social Security can’t go broke. These are the yin and yang of the current political stalemate.

In reality, no one seriously thinks that Social Security can go bankrupt. That language is used by people who wish to be heard, and shared by others through social media. To these people, the word “insolvency” isn’t frightening enough, so they use a word designed to trigger the reader’s reaction.

The downside of this debate strategy is that for every hyperbole in a political discussion there is an equal and opposite hyperbole in response. Call it Newton’s Third Law of Politics.  

In this case, the response to the claim that Social Security will go bankrupt is an endless series of “fact checks” assuring readers that Social Security can’t go bankrupt. The financial troubles of the program are magically transformed into a strawman argument to do nothing: you shouldn’t worry about Social Security because it will still pay benefits -- no matter what.

I am never sure what the journalists and would-be policy wonks mean by worst-case scenario. For those who depend upon Social Security, the worst-case scenario is not being able to afford the bare necessities.

While that possibility may not materialize in the near future, it would be substantially worse than getting a check reduced by 20 percent. Actually, the likelihood of beneficiaries receiving 80 percent of their promised benefits in 2033 is basically a coin flip.

Retirees today have been warned about this prospect for roughly 30 years. As time has passed, our elected officials have bickered over what to call insolvency, while doing little to prevent it. 

In Ernest Hemingway’s classic novel, The Sun Also Rises, a character asks, “How did you go bankrupt?” The other responds, “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” The same fate could behold Social Security if Congress does not do something soon.

Brenton Smith (think@heartland.org) is a policy advisor with The Heartland Institute.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/10/actually_social_security_em_can_em_go_bankrupt.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/10/non_citizen_cop_can_now_arrest_you_in_walz_s_minnesota.html

50 Years After Nixon Resigned, Impeachment Has Become a Political Weapon

 

Fifty years have passed since President Richard Nixon sent a letter on August 9, 1974 to then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, resigning the presidency under imminent threat of impeachment by the House of Representatives. Had he not resigned, he would almost surely have become only the second president in U.S. history to have been impeached since Andrew Johnson in 1868.

Half a century later, however, impeachment has become not a measure of last resort but a political weapon—one at odds with its purpose in the Constitution.

In addition to Johnson, who missed being convicted in his Senate trial by only one vote, two other presidents, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, have been impeached but were also not convicted in their Senate trials. Only one president was impeached in the first 200 years of our history. Yet in the last 50 years, two presidents have been impeached (one twice), and a third president just missed being impeached because he resigned.

Why this increase of impeachments against sitting presidents? To understand that, one must look at the impeachment clause and what the Framers intended it to be—and not to be—used to remedy.

>>> The Case for Impeachment of Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas Secretary of Homeland Security

The Constitution provides that the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The House has the “sole power of impeachment,” which requires a simple majority vote, and the Senate has the “sole Power to try all Impeachments,” which requires a two-thirds’ vote for conviction.

The House has impeached 21 officials, and the Senate held an impeachment trial for 16 of them, convicting eight—all federal judges.

Nixon was sworn in on January 20, 1973, after a landslide re-election in which he captured 49 states and 61 percent of the popular vote. Just 10 days later, two men were convicted of burglarizing the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate hotel complex the previous June (four others had already pleaded guilty), and the political dominoes began to fall.

Less than a month after Nixon took office, the Senate voted unanimously to create a select committee to investigate the Watergate break-in. Witnesses discussed Nixon’s “enemies list,” secret White House tape recordings, and connections between Nixon, his inner circle, and the Watergate burglars.

On February 6, 1974, the House voted 410-4 to authorize the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Nixon. On March 2, a federal grand jury indicted seven former Nixon administration officials, including Attorney General John Mitchell, on charges connected to the Watergate break-in, including obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to the FBI.

After an in-depth investigation and a few days after the Supreme Court unanimously ordered Nixon to turn over White House tapes of recorded conversations, the House committee voted 28-10 to approve three articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress.

>>> How History Will View Trump’s Impeachment

Remaining congressional support for Nixon disappeared when, on August 5, he released a transcript of another taped conversation that showed his complicity in the Watergate cover-up. However, there was never any evidence that he knew about, or was involved in, organizing the break-in. The House and Senate Republican leaders, Rep. John Rhodes of Arizona and Sen. Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania met with Nixon and urged him to resign. He did so two days later.

Even that abbreviated timeline shows the gravity of the situation and the lengths to which members of both parties in Congress went to investigate and establish the facts. That bipartisan process was about serious violations of the law, not policy differences between the president and members of Congress.

That is a crucial factor to keep in mind. Impeachment was not intended by the Framers to be used as a partisan political weapon or as a response by Congress to a president’s policies with which they disagree. That is what elections are for.

In the 50 years, we have learned that impeachment should not be used as a political weapon to resolve policy disputes, to retaliate for speeches or tweets by a president, or to short-circuit the results of an election with which the losing political party is unhappy.

Impeachment should only be used when a president is guilty of serious, substantial misconduct that betrays the public trust and renders him unfit to continue in office.

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/50-years-after-nixon-resigned-impeachment-has-become-political-weapon

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/trump-verdict-makes-nyc-venezuela-the-hudson

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/biden-executive-order-14019-unlawful-interference-state-election

Letitia James May be Winning the Lawfare but Losing the War

 Below is my column in the Hill on the rough week for New York Attorney General Letitia James in court. James has campaigned on lawfare and the Democratic New York voters have wildly supported her weaponization of the legal system against Trump and others. Now some judges are balking…

Here is the column:

In an age of lawfare, New York Attorney General Letitia James has always embraced the total war option. Her very appeal has been her willingness to use any means against political opponents.

James first ran for her office by pledging to bag Donald Trump on something, anything. She did not specify the violation, only that she would deliver the ultimate trophy kill for Democratic voters. James follows the view of what Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz said about war, law is merely politics “by other means.”

Yet, the political success of James in weaponizing her office has been in stark contrast with her legal setbacks in courts.

James earlier sought to use her office to disband the National Rifle Association, the most powerful gun rights organization in the country, due to self-dealing and corruption of executives. James notably did not target liberal groups accused of similar violations. The ridiculous effort to disband the NRA collapsed in court.

It did not matter. James knew that such efforts were performative and that New York voters did not care if such attacks failed. She will continue to win the lawfare battles, even if she loses the war.

This week, two of James’s best-known campaigns were struggling in court.

James is best known for her fraud case against Trump, in which she secured a $464 million fine and a ban on Trump from the New York real estate business for three years. That penalty, which has now risen to $489 million with interest, was in a case where no one had lost a dime due to the alleged inaccurate property valuations in bank loans secured by the Trump organization. Not only where the banks fully paid on the loans and made considerable profits, but they wanted to make additional loans to the Trump organization.

In appellate arguments this week, James’s office faced openly skeptical justices who raised the very arguments that some of us have made for years about the ludicrous fine imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron.

Justice David Friedman noted that this law “is supposed to protect the market and the consumers — I don’t see it here.”

His colleague Justice Peter Moulton told her office “The immense penalty in this case is troubling” and added, “How do you tether the amount that was assessed by [Engoron] to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?”

The answer, of course, is the case was never about markets. It was about politics. The fact that the banks were “happy” is immaterial. Happiness in New York is a political, not legal calculus. The justices did not rule this week, but an opinion could be issued within a month.

In the same week, James faced a stinging defeat in another popular cause. James had targeted pro-life organizations for spreading supposed “disinformation” in not just opposing the use of mifepristone (the abortion pill used in the majority of abortions in the United States), but in advocating the use of reversal procedures if mothers change their minds before taking the second drug in the treatment regimen.

Critics charge that, while there are some studies showing successful reversal cases, the treatment remains unproven and unapproved. It remains an intense debate.

James, however, wanted to end the debate. She targeted pregnancy centers and was then sued by two pro-life ministries, Summit Life Outreach Center and the Evergreen Association.

Judge John Sinatra Jr. blocked James‘s crackdown as a denial of free speech. Notably, these centers were not profiting by sharing this information or advocating such reversal treatment.

James merely declared that people advocating such reversal treatments are engaged in “spreading dangerous misinformation by advertising…without any medical and scientific proof.”

It is a familiar rationale on the left and discussed in my latest book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” It is the same rationale that led to the banning and blacklisting of experts during the pandemic for views that have now been vindicated on the efficacy of masks and other issues. They were silenced by those who declared their viewpoints as dangerously unproven or unapproved, but who were themselves wrong.

James claimed a right to crack down on views that she deemed unproven, even by those who were seeking only to disseminate information rather than sell products.

It did not seem to matter to her that, in the 2018 in NIFLA v. Becerra, the Supreme Court rejected the effort by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (now the secretary of Health and Human Services) to require crisis pregnancy centers to refer abortions.  The court refused to create an exception for requiring speech from licensed professionals.

After the effort failed to force doctors to disseminate pro-abortion information in California, James sought to prevent others from disseminating pro-life information in New York. The court ruled that, under the First Amendment, government officials cannot simply declare certain views as “disinformation” as a pretext to censor disfavored speech.

If there are harmful or fraudulent products or practices, the government has ample powers to target businesses and professionals involved with them. James, however, was seeking to silence those who advocate for a treatment that is unproven but not unlawful.

James’s legacy now includes an effort to disband a civil rights organization, deny free speech and secure confiscatory fines against her political opponents. Yet she is lionized by the media and politicians in an election that is billed as “saving democracy.”

In the end, James knows her audience, and it is not appellate judges. It does not matter to her if she is found to be violating the Constitution or abusing opponents. She has converted the New York legal system into a series of thrill-kills.

For some judges, however, the thrill may be gone.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/09/30/letitia-james-may-be-winning-lawfare-but-losing-the-war/

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/09/29/lebowitz-calls-for-biden-harris-to-dissolve-the-supreme-court/

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/09/27/all-the-kings-upgrades-there-may-be-less-than-meets-the-eye-in-the-adams-indictment/

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/09/23/the-supreme-crisis-of-chief-justice-john-roberts/