Romania’s Constitutional Court has overturned the outcome of the country's presidential election after Romania's intelligence agency claimed that foreign interference had changed the outcome of the election.
The court overturned the election results after a declassified report from its intelligence agency was released that alleged foreign interference via TikTok. This marks the first major instance of a country overturning an election due to allegations of foreign interference.
The recent election saw Călin Georgescu, 62, who ran without a party and made no campaign appearances, come in first in the first round of elections with 22.9% of the vote.
His stunning victory shocked every political observer as his campaign was entirely conducted through TikTok.
Politico noted that Georgescu's TikTok had garnered over 3.8 million likes and 298,000 followers, while his videos routinely received millions of views which propelled him to the top. However, Georgescu's populist rise to the top as a total outsider is running into trouble as the Romanian court system is attempting to stop him.
If Georgescu is to be believed, the Romanian court system and intelligence community are working together to stop a populist political movement, similar to how Democrats and American intelligence agencies have united against President-elect Donald Trump.
Georgescu issued a statement following the decision overturning the election saying, "Today, the Romanian state has trampled on democracy. We wrote history. It is time to show that we are a brave people. Democracy is under attack. … On this day, the corrupt system made a pact with the devil. I have only one pact — with the Romanian people and God.”
The declassified report named many of Georgescu's biggest supporters on TikTok promptly inciting outrage as it appears that the Romanian government is trying to intimidate Georgescu's supporters.
Călin Donca, a pro-Georgescu TikToker with 680,000 followers who was on the report, said "I appear on the declassified lists as the largest account that supported Călin Georgescu and I also appear as one of the people who continue to support him. And I support him, I don’t back down, I walk alongside him."
In yet another striking similarity to Trump, Georgescu's opponents claim that it was Russia that was behind his meteoric rise to fame and prominence.
A recount was held after the country’s largest party, the Social Democratic Party, demanded one alleging widespread voter fraud. After none was found, they instead resorted to claims that Georgescu was propped up by Russia.
George Simion, the leader of the right-wing Alliance for the Union of Romanians, expressed outrage over the decision saying, "Constitutional Court just annulled the entire electoral process for the presidential elections, i.e. both rounds. SHAMEFUL!!! Coup d’etat in full force! We are not taking to the streets, we will not be challenged, this system must fall democratically! God bless Romania!"
Georgescu was elected through an organic populist campaign that circumvented the establishment and they won't let it stand without a fight.
This situation is rapidly evolving and Americans ought to keep an eye on it as this could get ugly quickly. The Romanian establishment may do everything in their power to stop populism and preserve their power.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is stepping aside from a case on a railroad project after pressure from liberals.
In a letter, Gorsuch did not provide an explanation but hinted at a conflict of interest in the controversy, which has to do with the scope of environmental regulation under federal law.
Gorsuch's critics highlighted his past ties to an oil industry billionaire, Philip Anschutz, who has a stake in the case although he is not a party to the legal dispute.
A company owned by Anschutz filed a brief in the case urging the court to limit the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental reviews of every federal action.
"Because NEPA applies to every major federal action— including the authorizations Anschutz needs to develop federal oil-and-gas reserves—far more is at stake in this case than the 88-mile rail line in rural Utah," the brief says.
The case, which is going to be heard on Tuesday, concerns a proposed 88-mile rail line in eastern Utah that has faced opposition from environmentalists
More than a dozen Democratic lawmakers pushed Gorsuch to step aside over his ties to Anschutz, whom Gorsuch represented when he was an attorney.
Gorsuch confirmed that he will not participate, citing the Supreme Court's new code of conduct.
"I am writing to inform you that, consistent with the Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Gorsuch has determined that he will not participate in this case," a letter from Gorsuch's clerk said.
Over the past couple of years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Democrats have brought mounting pressure on the court and its conservative members, who comprise a 6-3 majority.
Criticism has focused on two of the court's most reliable conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and their ties to billionaire donors.
Under pressure, the Supreme Court adopted an ethics code last year that works on the honor system, but Democrats have called for more stringent restrictions to be imposed directly by Congress.
While there is no evidence that the justices have conducted court business to please wealthy benefactors, it appears Gorsuch did not want to feed any more outrage by getting involved in this case.
Indeed, Gorsuch appears to be sending a message that the court can be trusted to regulate itself.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from an environmental case involving a former client of his, billionaire Philip Anschutz, after Democrats said he had a conflict of interest.
Anschutz is not directly involved in the case, but filed a brief arguing that his company, Anschutz Exploration, would be affected by the outcome.
Early in Gorsuch's career, he represented Anschutz and reportedly has close ties with him.
After reviewing the court's newly adopted code of conduct, Gorsuch said he would not adjudicate the case.
He didn't really give a reason for his recusal but published the announcement on his website.
The case is about whether to consider the environmental impacts of oil and gas production and refining when deciding whether to build a railway line in Utah.
The other eight justices will decide whether federal environmental reviews are warranted in such projects.
The recusal is ammunition the justices can use about the new code of conduct being effective as a self-policing mechanism.
Democrats had argued that it lacked any method of enforcement and that legislation codifying it should be passed, but it seems to be working in this case.
When Gorsuch was an appeals court judge, he recused himself from several other cases involving Anschutz.
The author of the letter by the Democrats asking for Gorsuch's recusal, Rep. Hank Johnson (GA) took credit for the recusal in this case, however.
"I applaud Justice Gorsuch for doing the right and honorable thing," Johnson said in a statement. “It is important that the court show the public that it is not in the pocket of billionaire benefactors."
But much of the Democrats' indignation seems misplaced, since Gorsuch was refusing himself from cases with Anschutz long before that letter.
It only makes sense that the nation's most powerful jurists would have ties to other wealthy and powerful people, and courts have been dealing with such conflicts for many years before any laws were made about it.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is stepping aside from an upcoming case about environmental regulation over an apparent undisclosed conflict.
On December 10, the court will wade into a legal battle over a proposed railway project in rural Utah, the Uinta Basin Rail. The Supreme Court has to decide the scope of environmental review required by the government for such projects under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Critics of Gorsuch pushed for his recusal because of his ties to billionaire Philip Anschutz, whom Gorsuch represented as a corporate lawyer in the 2000s.
The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, concerns whether the National Environmental Policy Act "requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority."
Anschutz's company, Anschutz Exploration Corporation, filed a brief in the case arguing for a limited interpretation of NEPA.
"Because NEPA applies to every major federal action—including the authorizations Anschutz needs to develop federal oil-and-gas reserves—far more is at stake in this case than the 88-mile rail line in rural Utah," the company wrote.
A letter from a court clerk said that Gorsuch "has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case."
The proposed 88-mile Utah rail line would connect the oil-rich Uinta Basin with the national rail network.
The project has backing from seven eastern Utah counties and was approved by the Surface Transportation Board, but a lower court struck it down, finding the environmental review didn't go far enough.
Gorsuch's letter did not provide an explanation for his recusal. But the letter cited a code of conduct that the court adopted in 2023 after outrage over gifts that conservatives Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas received from billionaires.
Democrats have complained the code is not enforceable, and they have called on Congress to impose strict rules requiring recusal in certain situations.
Republicans have dismissed the pressure on the court as a partisan attempt to discredit and weaken the conservative majority that was solidified during President Trump's first term. Gorsuch was Trump's first appointee.
After Gorsuch made public his decision to recuse himself from the railroad case, Democratic congressman Hank Johnson (GA) took a victory lap and suggested, without evidence, that the court is in the pocket of billionaire benefactors.
"I think it is essential to maintaining the public's respect in the integrity of the Court, and I applaud Justice Gorsuch for doing the right and honorable thing," Johnson said.
"It is important that the Court show the public that it is not in the pocket of billionaire benefactors."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared reluctant to order the destruction of a Tennessee state law that protects children from being subjected to the chemicals – and even physical body mutilations – that are involved in the transgender industry.
At issue is a state law that bars minors from undergoing transgender procedures – an industry that has exploded with the constant promotions by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris over the past few years.
The Washington Examiner explained the members of the high court "appeared skeptical" over demands that they strike down the law in a case brought by leftists who promote the ideology.
The state of Tennessee has explained that it has the authority to regulate medical treatment and procedures, and that's exactly what it is doing.
The challengers in the case claim that such limits discriminate on the basis of sex.
"The majority of justices appeared to be sympathetic to Tennessee's arguments," the report said.
The leftist oriented America Civil Liberties Union initially challenged the law, and claimed it was working on behalf of "families with transgender adolescents."
Of course, following the science makes clear that changing from male to female or vice versa isn't possible, as being male or female is embedded in the body down to the DNA level. Further, studies have confirmed that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria issues resolve themselves to an identity of their birth sex if left alone.
Biden's Department of Justice eventually joined the case on behalf of the pro-transgender agenda he and Kamala Harris adopted.
A ruling in the case, which isn't expected for some months, is expected to have an impact on multiple state laws that address the same issue – the politicized agenda that involves giving children chemicals and body mutilations to appease a transgender ideology.
Tennessee Solicitor General James Rice explained "there is no sex-based line" in his state's law that would violate the 14th Amendment.
When Biden's legal representative in the case claimed it is sex discrimination, with, "This statute on its face says you can't have medication inconsistent with sex, and no matter what you think about transgender discrimination generally, that's a sex-based line," Justice Samuel Alito noted, "I'm not sure that's anything more than a play on words."
Alito suggested that transgender identity may not be an unchanging characteristic.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested the case would be the trigger for "identifying a new suspect class, which we haven't done for a long time."
Chief Justice John Roberts raised the issue of the side effects of the chemicals that promoters want to give children.
"Here it seems to me that the medical issues are much more heavily involved than many of the cases that you look to," said Roberts. He said the Supreme Court is "not the best situated to address issues like that."
Alito also pointed out other Western nations in recent days have "significantly curtailed" their use of drugs and chemicals.
A lawyer for Biden's administration did concede that cross-sex hormones have permanent effects on a developing child's body.
And she admitted there are detransitioners who have regret over their transgender beliefs.
A statement from the office of the Tennessee attorney general, in defense of its protection for children, said, "We are here defending Tennessee's law protecting children from irreversible and unproven gender transition procedures."
AG Jonathan Skrmetti added, "Tennessee's general assembly reviewed the medical evidence, as well as the evidence-based decisions of European countries that restricted these procedures, and ultimately passed this bipartisan law prohibiting irreversible medical interventions. The plaintiffs in this case are asking the court to take the power to regulate the practice of medicine away from the people's elected representatives and vest it in unaccountable judges."
"Our arguments were ultimately about constitutional clarity and common sense," Skrmetti added, "Our Founders guaranteed states the right and responsibility to protect children, regulate the medical profession, and independently evaluate the evidence of the risks and benefits of practices to be regulated. We cannot allow ideology to override medical evidence at the expense of our right to self-government and our duty to protect our children."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden's lies about his son Hunter's legal jeopardy this week, in the course of using his presidential power to pardon him from any possible punishment through America's justice system, have added to his record of willful misstatements.
Hunter Biden was convicted of gun charges, and pleaded guilty to tax charges, with the possible penalties being years in prison.
So Joe Biden, after months and months of repeatedly assuring Americans he would not issue a pardon to Hunter, did exactly that.
But how he did it, by blaming prosecutors and judges for being unfair to Hunter and for singling him out for their cases, now has drawn a rebuke from a federal judge.
Fox News said it was U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi, who is overseeing Hunter Biden's tax case and had a sentencing scheduled, who responded to Joe Biden's fabrications.
In a five-page order, the judge described how Joe Biden is trying to be "rewriting history" with the pardon, and he cited a technical illegality in Joe Biden's decision.
"The Constitution provides the president with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history," the judge said.
He noted that the president told the judiciary of his flip-flop on the issue, and the resulting pardon, through a press release.
"Rather than providing a true and correct copy of the pardon with the notice, Mr. Biden provided a hyperlink to a White House press release presenting a statement by the president regarding the pardon and the purported text of the pardon," the judge said. "In short, a press release is not a pardon."
Then he continued, with, "the president asserts that Mr. Biden 'was treated differently' from others 'who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions,' implying that Mr. Biden was among those individuals who untimely paid taxes due to addiction. But he is not."
And, the judge pointed out, "According to the president, '[n]o reasonable person who looks at the facts of [Mr. Biden's] cases can reach any other conclusion than [Mr. Biden] was singled out only because he is [the president's] son.' But two federal judges expressly rejected Biden's arguments that the government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the president. And the president's own attorney general and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges."
The judge commented how Joe Biden considers "this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, (as) unreasonable people."
The judge said the pardon would be processed in the legal case once the official pardon is provided.
But he also noted that the pardon, issued on December 1, was for any acts that included those through the end of that day.
"The Supreme Court long has recognized that, notwithstanding its nearly unlimited nature, the pardon power extends only to past offenses," he wrote.
He pointed out, "Because the period of pardoned conduct extends 'through' the date of execution, the warrant may be read to apply prospectively to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, exceeding the scope of the pardon power."
The Washington Examiner characterized the judge's comments as being "harshly" critical of Joe Biden.
And he said Joe Biden's characterizations "stand in tensions with the case record."
The report noted, "Hunter Biden pleaded guilty in September to nine tax charges, and as part of his plea, the first son admitted that every accusation made by special counsel David Weiss in his indictment was true, including that he committed tax crimes while he was sober."
A federal judge has postponed the sentencing of seven pro-life activists, indicating the 2024 presidential election could influence their case.
The delay is tied to possible changes in the administration that could affect the application of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, Breitbart reported.
Judge Matthew Leitman of the federal court has decided to pause the sentencing for seven activists convicted under the FACE Act during a 2020 protest in Michigan. This move comes amid anticipation of policy shifts following the presidential election.
The activists, facing up to ten years in prison, had their case postponed to a status conference set for the week of March 24, 2025. This decision by Judge Leitman reflects the potential for significant legal changes post-election.
During his campaign, former President Donald Trump openly criticized the Biden administration's aggressive enforcement of the FACE Act, especially against pro-life advocates. This criticism aligns with Trump’s promises to reassess such prosecutions.
The Biden administration's prosecution of FACE Act cases has seen a notable increase since the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision in 2022, which has led to heightened scrutiny of such cases.
Trump, signaling potential pardons, has mentioned several pro-life activists by name, asserting that their imprisonment was politically motivated and promising swift action if re-elected.
In September 2023, Republican lawmakers including Rep. Chip Roy and Sen. Mike Lee proposed a bill to repeal the FACE Act, which they argue has been misused to target pro-life activists.
In response to the judge’s unprecedented delay, Steve Crampton, senior counsel for the Thomas More Society, expressed surprise, noting such a postponement is highly unusual and possibly indicative of the politicized nature of these cases.
Crampton’s observation suggests a growing sentiment among legal experts that the application of the FACE Act could be reevaluated depending on the election's outcome.
As part of their defense strategy, the Thomas More Society is preparing formal petitions for pardons, anticipating a favorable shift with the new administration.
Judge Leitman, in his order dated November 19, underscored the importance of reassessing the case after the election, reflecting a judicial openness to potential executive and legislative changes.
Donald Trump has vocally supported these activists, claiming excessive force in their arrests and pledging to address their cases as one of his first acts upon potentially returning to the White House.
Rep. Chip Roy also highlighted the necessity of legislative action against what he views as persecution under the FACE Act, indicating a significant push from some quarters to overhaul how the law is applied.
Lawyers for Donald Trump have filed their motion to dismiss Alvin Bragg's "business records" case.
The 72-page filing argues that Trump's conviction must be thrown out after his re-election victory sent him back to the White House. Despite Trump's win, Bragg has asked the judge to delay the sentencing until after Trump leaves office in 2029.
In their dismissal motion, Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove argued that Bragg's continued prosecution efforts interfere with the transfer of power and Trump's mandate to govern the nation.
Trump's lawyers pointed to Special Counsel Jack Smith, who dropped his two federal cases against Trump, as proof that Bragg's efforts cannot continue.
While moving to dismiss, Smith conceded that the Constitution requires Trump to be free and clear before his inauguration. As Smith put it, "the President must not be unduly encumbered in fulfilling his weighty responsibilities" to the nation.
Applying the same logic to Bragg's case, Trump's team argued that failure to dismiss would expose Trump to "unacceptable burdens and distractions" during his time in office.
They argued that Bragg had created an unconstitutional "nightmare scenario" with his attempt to leave a criminal conviction hanging over the head of a future president who won a resounding national mandate.
"Burdening the Presidency with a biased prosecution by a local prosecutor would be not only unconstitutional, but also unbearably undemocratic to the people of this country who chose President Trump as their leader," they wrote.
In summary, Trump's lawyers argued the Supremacy Clause, the immunity doctrine, and the Presidential Transition Act all require dismissal.
They also cited President Biden's pardon of his son Hunter, in which Biden ironically accused his own Justice Department of political targeting.
"Since DA Bragg took office, he has engaged in “precisely the type of political theater” that President Biden condemned," Trump's attorneys wrote.
The case "should never have been brought, particularly during a period when DA Bragg’s failure to protect this City from pervasive violent crime frightens, threatens, and harms New Yorkers on a daily basis," they said.
After Trump's historic re-election win, Judge Juan Merchan postponed the sentencing indefinitely and granted Trump's lawyers permission to make their case for dismissal by December 2. Bragg has until December 9 to respond to Trump's motion.
Trump's incoming White House communications director, Steve Cheung, urged Merchan to "do the right thing and end what remains of this charade immediately, rightfully allowing our country to unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In the wake of Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter, a new report claims the president is now considering preemptive pardons for "officials who could be targeted with President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House."
Politico mentions three names in particular for the blanket protection: U.S. Sen.-elect Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.; and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases "who became a lightning rod for criticism from the right during the COVID-19 pandemic."
The report notes: "The White House officials … are carefully weighing the extraordinary step of handing out blanket pardons to those who've committed no crimes, both because it could suggest impropriety, only fueling Trump's criticisms, and because those offered preemptive pardons may reject them."
The possibility of preemptive pardons is sparking instant reaction on the political right.
"Why would they need to do that if they did nothing wrong?" wondered Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA.
Journalist Nick Sortor proffered the answer: "Why, you ask? Because Biden KNOWS those three are guilty as sin. Biden is doing nothing short of abusing his power to save his political allies from being properly investigated and prosecuted."
"This is just incredible," said Alex Jones of Infowars, who recorded his reaction while driving a car. "That just shows you how real Trump is."
"That's their (Democrats') whole plan. Civil war and stuff. They are desperate, they are crazy, they are dangerous and now they're moving."
The Gateway Pundit reported:
Pardons for Cheney, Fauci, and Schiff would represent an assault on the justice system greater than Hunter's pardon. Consider just some of the awful actions these three have committed:
• Cheney reportedly suppressed critical evidence indicating that President Donald Trump had authorized National Guard troops to be on standby during the Capitol protest.
• Schiff was one of the key figures behind the Russia Collusion Hoax which sought to delegitimize Trump's historic 2016 election victory over Crooked Hillary Clinton. He was also deeply involved in the first garbage impeachment against Trump in 2019.
ADVERTISEMENT• Fauci, of course, was the absolute worst prevaricator during the COVID pandemic. He lied to the public about masks, how the virus spreads, and even smeared those who rightfully spoke out against the economic crippling lockdowns.
His NIH department also was involved in gain-of-function research with the Chinese to make viruses like COVID more infectious and multiple evil experiments torturing innocent animals in the name of science.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Yelp, the online social media operation that lists and reviews various business operations, is insisting it deserves an exemption from a federal court standard that precludes review there when the same people and their issues are being addressed in state court.
The fight is over Yelp's decision to attach negative information to listings for crisis pregnancy centers, those locations that offer counseling but not abortions.
Yelp created those warnings specifically for those centers after 2022 when Texas adopted abortion limits following the demise, in the U.S. Supreme Court, of the faulty Roe v. Wade opinion that created out of thin air a federal "right" to abortion.
Courthouse News explains that Yelp's fight now is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges heard arguments this week.
The company sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, claiming a First Amendment dispute, when he threatened, and later did, take Yelp to state court over its warnings.
Yelp has claimed that it watches for when "consumers may be deceived" and then attaches warnings, claiming that the pregnancy counseling centers "were leading users seeking abortion care away from medical providers to anti-abortion counseling services."
A federal judge previously dismissed Yelp's complaint, citing a 1971 precedent that found federal courts can't hear civil rights tort claims when the same players and issues are in state court.
Paxton had sued Yelp about the same time Yelp sued him, and while that case was dismissed it is pending at an appeals court.
Yelp lawyer James Sigel told the judges that Yelp deserves an exemption to that precedent, claiming Paxton's case was "meritless."
He said Yelp would look for "bad faith" on the part of Paxton if the case is allowed to continue.
The report, however, said the judges appeared to doubt Yelp's claims.
"You want the federal court to enjoin the attorney general from prosecuting that case or pursuing that case," said U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, a Donald Trump appointee. "That's a difficult one. It seems to me if you win on this, we're gonna have cases filed every week in federal court saying, 'I don't like what that the attorney general is doing in that state.'"
Two other judges expressed similar doubts.
A lawyer for the state of Texas said the fight should be handled in Texas courts.
The state had charged that the Yelp "warning labels" were misleading and overbroad in that they didn't apply the same to all centers.
Paxton had said Yelp cannot lie about the centers.