This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. House has gone to court in Steve Bannon's contempt of Congress case arguing that Nancy Pelosi's committee to "investigate" the events of Jan. 6, 2021, failed to follow the rules of the House, so the subpoenas issued to Bannon were illegitimate, and he could not be convicted of contempt for ignoring unfounded demands.
A report from Just the News explains the legal filing happened a week ago with no fanfare.
The report explained, "This new intervention from the House undermines the justifications the original Select Committee used to issue the subpoenas and provide ammunition for Bannon's appeal."
Because of the committee "failed in its formation to follow" House rules, its subpoenas therefore were invalid, it charges.
"The House brief argues the select committee was improperly constituted and that neither then-Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi nor the committee leadership followed the directives of House Resolution 503, which established the committee," the report said.
The filing fulfills a promise made by Speaker Mike Johnson to intervene.
Bannon for a time was an adviser in President Donald Trump's White House but refused to answer questions from the committee, explaining the information he held was covered by executive privilege and he could not provide it to Congress.
Pelosi and other Democrats then demanded he be prosecuted for not answering.
Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison, which he is serving now at a federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut.
Johnson had promised, "We're working on filing an amicus brief with his appellate work there in his case because the January 6 committee was, we think, wrongfully constituted. We think the work was tainted. We think that they may have very well covered up evidence and maybe even more nefarious activities."
The resolution creating Pelosi's committee, which spent months of time and millions of taxpayer dollars essentially trying to blame all the events that day on Trump, whose offer of additional National Guard troops was refused by Pelosi, required 13 members, including five Republicans.
Pelosi refused to allow the GOP members the party nominated, and instead picked two rabidly anti-Trump party members, both of whom shortly later were out of Congress.
WND previously reported Republican members in the House were working to nullify the entirety of the committee's work.
The Gateway Pundit reported some two dozen members are sponsoring a resolution that would designate the committee and its work illegitimate and cancel the subpoenas it issued during its time in the spotlight.
It explains that's significant because it would be, "Rescinding the subpoenas issued by the January 6th Select Committee on September 23, 2021, October 6, 2021, and February 9, 2022, and withdrawing the recommendations finding Stephen K. Bannon, Mark Randall Meadows, Daniel Scavino, Jr., and Peter K. Navarro in contempt of Congress," the resolution reads.
Navarro already served jail time on the basis of that committee's demands.
The Democrats long have claimed, without much foundation, that the events that day, when Trump supporters protested the decision to formalize Joe Biden as the election winner, were an actual "insurrection" against the United States, where by definition protesters would have been intending to take over the government's economy, military, foreign policy and much, much more. They've even tried to keep Trump off the 2024 ballot on the basis of their claims. The events actually were a protest that got out of hand.
It was Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., and Eric Burlison, R-Mo., who introduced a resolution "aimed at rescinding the congressional subpoenas issued to Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro. This proposal also seeks to officially repudiate the actions of the January 6 committee, which Massie and other Republicans have labeled as wholly illegitimate."
The Republicans charge that the committee staged a "show" investigation, assembling evidence they claimed supported the conclusion they already had reached, of Trump's guilt.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Harvard-trained researcher has concluded that Google's decision to manipulate search results on its platform could have shifted at least six million votes – to Joe Biden's totals – during the 2020 election.
That, of course, was the election also influenced by Mark Zuckerberg's $400 million handed out to elections officials who often used it to recruit Democrat voters, as well as the interference by the FBI and CIA whose officials colluded to claim, falsely, that the Biden family scandals documented in Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop were Russian disinformation.
WND reported that it was Dr. Robert Epstein, a Democrat voter, who informed Fox News' Tucker Carlson show at the time he had 733 field agents in swing states Arizona, North Carolina and Florida.
He reported, at the time, "We found a period of days when the vote reminder on Google's homepage was being sent only to liberals — not one of our conservative field agents received a vote reminder during those days."
Exposed, the megacorporation then\ "backed off," he reported.
It appears that song, out of tune though it may be, is playing again for the 2024 election.
The Daily Caller said Google right now is being criticized for blatantly censoring information to conceal details about the recent assassination attempt on President Donald Trump, the GOP nominee this year.
The report explained it involves the "autocomplete" feature that has been edited into the software.
The report said, "Typing the phrase 'assassination attempt on Tru…' into Google's search engine does not automatically recommend the relevant phrase 'assassination attempt on Trump,' instead ranking 'assassination attempt on Truman' as the highest result, video posted on X by Libs Of TikTok shows. Other results below the search conducted by Libs Of TikTok included '… Trump's case,' '… Trump's administration' and 'How many presidents have had assassination attempts."
A congressional investigation would be appropriate, charged Libs of TikTok.
And Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., said it was "Orwellian."
"Why is Google suppressing the search about the Trump assassination attempt? These are all screenshots from this morning. Has there been a dramatic increase in Truman biographers in the last two weeks?" Marshall asked. "I'll be making an official inquiry into Google this week – I look forward to their response."
Republican Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, said he verified the problem.
"Big Tech is trying to interfere in the election AGAIN to help Kamala Harris. We all know this is intentional election interference from Google. Truly despicable," Trump's son wrote with a screenshot of his search results.
A Google official claimed no "manual action" had been done skew those search results.
"Our systems have protections against Autocomplete predictions associated with political violence, which were working as intended prior to this horrific event occurring," that official claimed.
The Daily Mail confirmed conservatives were given the impression the web giant was involved in "election tampering."
The report noted a recent Media Research Center study "not only cited 16 incidents of Google election interference but also claimed that Google's new AI tool Gemini "won't answer negative questions" about Joe Biden."
"'MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years,' MRC Free Speech America vice president Dan Schneider and editor Gabriela Pariseau wrote in the report's summary," the report said.
They explained, "From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public: That Google uses its 'great strength and resources and reach' to advance its leftist values."
Google repeatedly has denied the charges.
But WND reported that Google, the "gorilla in the room regarding internet searches," has indeed interfered in elections at least 41 times in recent years.
Dan Schneider, MRC's Free Speech America vide president, and Gabriela Pariseau, editor, said in a summary, "MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates – regardless of party – who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice."
There are solutions, the MRC work suggested, including that House Speaker Mike Johnson should "direct relevant committees" to investigate the likely violation of constitutional rights involved in the censorship.
Also possible would be to declare Google a common carrier.
Complaints that Google routinely censors any information based on no more than its own ideologies have become common. One situation involved the I&I website, which is the Issues & Insights home.
The site officials said they noticed the problem because Google's AdSense ad network had been withdrawn from an article.
"What was the violation? According to Google, the article contained 'unreliable and harmful information.' What does that mean?" the site asked, citing the online giant's demands that forbid content that "makes claims that are demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral or democratic process."
Two other disqualifiers are content that promotes harmful health claims or contradicts an "authoritative scientific consensus on climate change."
"But this new article wasn't about climate change. It wasn't about COVID. It also wasn't about election fraud. It wasn't about the Jan. 6 riots. It wasn't about anything controversial," I&I reported.
"It was an article about the results of our own monthly I&I/TIPP poll, which asked registered voters 'who do you want to see run for president in 2024.' We broke out the findings by party affiliation, and reported on the results. Which were that while 60% of Republicans wanted Donald Trump to run in 2024, a mere 37% of Democrats wanted President Joe Biden to be on the ticket," the site said.
Google's intolerance level rose to the occasion, censoring it.
Another report by WND also confirmed that Google has interfered in elections around the world.
So said Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, author of "Clinton Cash" and producer of the new film "The Creepy Line."
One of the scientists featured said one-quarter of the world's elections are impacted.
"You don't see it, it's not visible – you are not seeing police coming into your house," explained Schweizer. "But they are, in a real way, like Big Brother, sifting and determining what you should see and what you shouldn't see. The problem is you can see storm troopers – you can see the fist of government trying to infringe on your rights – you can't see what Google is doing because its hidden and we don't know what we don't know."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A lawsuit has been filed in Florida asking that the secretary of state be told to remove the name of Kamala Harris from the 2024 presidential ballot and that preliminary and permanent injunctions be issued "enjoining defendant Harris from running."
Her fault?
She participated in "a massive fraud under Florida election law … to conceal Joe Biden's debilitative poor health and at best dementia from Florida voters."
The case was brought by lawyer Larry Klayman, who founded both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch USA, and was filed in Florida courts in Leon County.
In a statement about the issue, Klayman said, "Kamala Harris is a dishonest far leftist political hack who now aspires to be president of the United States. But having participated in a fraud that put our national security at extreme risk by promoting an essentially braindead person, it would be an even greater risk if she were allowed to run for the presidency.
"Justice must be done as she and her co-conspirators must legally pay for their callous disrespect for the office of president of the United States by endangering Floridians and the American people as a whole."
Along with Harris, Joe Biden, Jill Biden and White House doctor Kevin O'Connor are named.
The case seeks compensatory and actual damages to be determined at trial, attorneys' fees and costs, and the injunction against Harris being on the ballot.
Punitive damages will be requested "at the appropriate time.
The legal filing explains that the defendants acting in concert "fraudulently and intentionally covered up the true mental and physical conditions of Defendant Biden that made him unfit for the presidency and posed a potentially fatal security risk to the nation."
This all developed heading into the 2020 election, the paperwork explains.
They "colluded and conspired together to conceal Defendant Biden's debilitating condition and continuing mental and physical decline intentionally and fraudulently which resulted (in) defendant Biden's election as president and defendant Harris's election as vice president."
That has continued into the 2024 election season, it claims.
The lawsuit charges that O'Connor gave Joe Biden a good bill of health when at the time he was being treated for four different medical conditions, "including non-valvular atrial fibrillation, a type of irregular heart rhythm, hyperlipidemia, higher concentrations of fats, gastresophageal reflux and seasonal allergies."
The filing points out, "After the disastrous, totally confused, and incomprehensible presidential debate performance by defendant Biden against former President Trump on June 27, 2024 where defendant Biden appeared incapacitated, James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, wrote a letter to defendant O'Connor just weeks ago, on July 7, 2024, seeking to understand the extent of his involvement in the Biden family's financial activity, particularly his involvement with defendant Biden's brother, James, with Americore Health, LLC."
What was revealed as that O'Connor never recommended a cognitive exam for Joe Biden.
And James Biden previously admitted that O'Connor provided counsel in connection with the alleged work he was performing with Americore," through which large sums of money passed to Biden family members."
Harris had a duty to reveal Biden's true health conditions, it charges.
The action is based in part on Florida law that makes it fraud or corruption for any elected official to "change or place in doubt the result of the election."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden has earned a lot of disgust from average Americans over his spending trillions of American tax dollars the nation didn't have, sparking inflation as high as 9%, after President Donald Trump had turned over an economy humming along with 1.4% inflation.
And Biden indeed used his advisers' schemes to propose that spending.
But it turns out that Kamala Harris, Biden's apparent replacement on the Democrats' 2024 White House ticket after Biden, blasted with evidence of a declining mental capacity, dropped out, actually provided the key vote that gave Americans that inflation.
The report noted Harris has cast 33 tie-breaking votes in the Senate so far, more than any other vice president, but it was her second, "for the stimulus package at the beginning of the Biden administration," that hit the American economy hard, triggering that inflation that peaked at just over 9%.
It has since fallen but remains significantly above the inflation under President Trump.
It was a $1.9 trillion spending agenda approved in the Senate, on Harris's vote, in 2021.
The report explained, "The U.S. inflation rate was 1.4% in 2020, then jumped to 7% in 2021."
Biden repeatedly, and falsely, claimed he inherited 9% inflation.
And Americans are noticing. The report cited a Pew poll from May in which 62% of adults said inflation was "a very big problem."
Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., told the John Solomon Reports podcast that Harris "was the deciding vote in the Senate that unleashed this massive inflation on the American people. The Senate was tied 50-50. She voted for the American Rescue Plan in the Senate to break that tie. And then what happened was this massive inflation – which has hurt every working-class American, every senior on a fixed income – that is squarely on the shoulders of Kamala Harris."
Stephen Moore, who formerly advised Trump on economics, said in the report that Harris now is embracing the failed Biden economic and border agendas.
"Let the American people decide what they think," Moore said.
He pointed out that under Biden and Harris, "average weekly family earnings have dropped by $2,100, whereas they were up by $5,500 under Trump."
Multiple economic experts said Harris is at fault for the nation's sinking economy as much as Biden.
"She owns this. She and the president, who she defended with lies for the duration of the last three and a half years, on this entire failure," one said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Trump long has described the various civil and criminal cases launched by Democrats against him just as he campaigns as the Republican nominee for the White House this year as election interference.
Those multiple cases now are on appeal or have been delayed by the Supreme Court's ruling that presidents have much immunity for their actions in office, with lower courts now trying to sort out the details.
Needless to say, a local judge's demand that Trump spend weeks sitting in his courtroom to hear wild claims about old misdemeanors that now are felonies because the prosecutor said so interfered significantly with Trump's ability to campaign as he would choose.
Further, another judge demanded hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties from Trump in a "fraud" case in which there were no victims, nobody lost money, there were no unpaid loans, and indeed the banks involved wanted to do more business with Trump.
Prosecutors in other cases repeatedly have demanded to go to trial before the election, as that would further impede Trump's campaign, and might even see him sentenced before the vote.
But now Congress will be taking a look at a plan to block such election interference.
It is U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., who has proposed legislation that would put a halt to election interference schemes by state officials and bureaucrats who launch politicized civil or criminal cases.
The Florida Capitol Star said, "The Prevention of Election Interference Act of 2024 would bar the sentencing of presidential candidates in court 120 days before a presidential election. It also would prevent the candidate from being sentenced 60 days after a presidential election."
Gaetz said, "Presidential candidates should have the right to campaign without interference, regardless of their party affiliation! Over the past two years, state officials and unelected bureaucrats have been keeping President Trump tied up in court with dubious charges, hindering his ability to campaign nationwide."
His succinct plan says, "No State, or any officer or instrumentality thereof, may impose or carry out a sentence for a State criminal offense committed by a major party candidate during the covered period.
"During the covered time, a major party candidate may submit an application to a State or Federal court of jurisdiction demonstrating that such sentence described under subsection (a) may interfere with the campaign activities of the major party candidate. Upon receipt of an application under subsection (a), the State or Federal court of jurisdiction shall amend a sentence relating to the major party candidate, including by staying the sentence for the duration of the covered period or vacating such sentence."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A newly created state panel in Georgia that Democrats fear will be used to crack down on rogue prosecutors like Fani Willis, who hired her paramour to assemble a now-delayed organized crime case against President Donald Trump, will move forward.
That's after a judge found that the plan, approved by lawmakers and signed by the governor, does not violate the state or federal constitutions.
Republicans originated the plan for the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission to "discipline so-called rogue prosecutors who are refusing to enforce laws," according to an Associated Press posting.
But Democrats have tried to scuttle the plan, as they believe it could impact Willis and her case against Trump, which now is pending at an appeals court on a defense request to have Willis removed.
Because of the scandalous behavior she allowed in the case, hiring her paramour at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $700,000 to create a list of charges against Trump, the case has been delayed. A lower court judge said she could remain on the case if her paramour left, which he did.
But defense counsel, citing that judge's acknowledgment of the odor of "mendacity" still in the case, went to a higher court to get her removed.
Now Fulton County Superior Court Judge Paige Reese Whitaker has rejected a request for an injunction against the commission, which was created with the announced intention of putting a cap on plans by rogues to go political with the cases they file.
Prosecutors in other states have taken up the same goal after public officials there have stated they will let drug possession defendants go, and seek shorter prison sentences for some offenders.
In Georgia, it was many prosecutors, including Sherry Boston of DeKalb County, Jared Williams of Augusta, and Jonathan Adams of Monroe counties who challenged the creation of the body.
The underlying lawsuit remains pending, but Whitaker also has expressed "grave doubts about its arguments that the law violates prosecutorial discretion, a fundamental of the American judicial system through which prosecutors decide what charges to bring and how severe of a sentence to seek," the report said.
She added, "Because the Georgia Constitution expressly authorizes the General Assembly to impose statutory duties on district attorneys and to create the grounds and process to discipline or remove district attorneys, there is no violation of the state Constitution's separation of powers clause."
WND has reported that Willis recently was informed her case against Trump, which she wanted to take to trial before the election, is at a standstill until late this year.
CBS News now reports the Georgia Court of Appeals has scheduled a hearing on Dec. 5 on the issue of whether Willis will be allowed to continue on the case.
One of the outside interests asking to join the case on behalf of Trump is the American Center for Law and Justice.
That organization announced it has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the appeals court calling for Willis to be removed from the case entirely.
The organization explained, "As we told you when the trial judge's decision on Fani Willis first came out, the judge's ruling made simply no sense. The judge found as fact that Fani Willis' conduct had an 'appearance of impropriety,' based on her relationship with Nathan Wade. Nonetheless, the judge allowed Willis to proceed with the prosecution anyway. The facts are clear that Willis must be disqualified from overseeing the high-profile election interference case against President Trump."
The ACLJ listed the facts:
"Willis appointed her alleged romantic partner, Nathan Wade, as a special prosecutor – paying him over $650,000 in taxpayer money.
"She appears to have benefited personally from this appointment, taking lavish vacations funded by Wade's earnings from the case.
"Willis and Wade seemingly attempted to conceal their relationship, only admitting to it after being cornered by evidence."
The ACLJ cited "corruption, cronyism, and abuse of power" in the case.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The United States Secret Service refused an offer to use drones from local law enforcement in Butler, Pennsylvania, at former President Donald Trump's campaign rally July 13, according to a whistleblower.
U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., shared a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas with the allegation on Thursday.
He noted the FBI probe of the scene included evidence Trump's shooter, 20-year-old Thomas Crooks, used his own drone to survey the rally site just two hours before Trump took the stage.
"This raises the obvious question: why was the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) not using its own drones?" Hawley asked.
"According to one whistleblower, the night before the rally, U.S. Secret Service repeatedly denied offers from a local law enforcement partner to utilize drone technology to secure the rally," Hawley wrote.
"This means that the technology was both available to USSS and able to be deployed to secure the site. Secret Service said no. The whistleblower further alleges that after the shooting took place, USSS changed course and asked the local partner to deploy the drone technology to surveil the site in the aftermath of the attack.
"It is hard to understand why USSS would decline to use drones when they were offered, particularly given the fact the USSS permitted the shooter to overfly the rally area with his own drone mere hours before the event.
Hawley noted: "The American people deserve answers about your historic failure to protect former President Trump."
[postpoll]
The senator is giving Mayorkas seven days to provide "all records and communications concerning the availability or use of drones" at the rally.
"You must also testify next week about these staggering security failures by your department."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned for office on getting President Donald Trump and then orchestrated a flimsily grounded case against him, is being accused of blatantly violating the First Amendment.
"The tools of law enforcement must never be turned into weapons against political activity. The First Amendment prohibits government officials, from the most minor local officer to the attorney general of New York, from using their power and authority to target the speech of those they dislike," explains a brief prepared by the American Center for Law and Justice.
The document was being prepared to file in Trump's appeal in the Supreme Court of New York of a lower court's wild claim that he owes some $350 million in penalties for his business practices.
He then claimed Trump was liable for the hundreds of millions of dollars even though there was no evidence that anyone lost money because of Trump's deals, the banks with which he worked expressed a desire to do more business with him, there were no unpaid loans and no losses – by anyone.
The ACLJ continued, "No official has the authority to use their power to target speech through selective enforcement. And that is exactly what happened here. Facts in the public record demonstrate that the New York Attorney General Letitia James (the 'Attorney General') has taken the New York Executive Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(12) (Consol.), and using it to attack President Trump for his political activity and speech.
"The attorney general expressly ran for her office on a platform of prosecuting President Trump for his political speech and activity. She then did so, using the law in unprecedented ways to seek financial penalties and the dissolution of President Trump's businesses, based on her disagreements with his political views.
The ACLJ said, "No interpretation of state law authorizes the attorney general to engage in politicized prosecutions. Just as the Supreme Court emphasized in Vullo, although the attorney general can pursue violations of state law, she cannot do so for the reason of seeking to punish or suppress President Trump's protected expression. Contentions that President Trump violated New York law does not excuse the attorney general to use the law and coercive threats to stifle his speech. It does not matter whether she alleges a meaningful violation of state law or not; regardless, the attorney general has impermissibly used her authority to target the political speech of her opponent."
The ACLJ said it is arguing "the civil action she brought against President Trump was an unconstitutional act of retaliation for his First Amendment activity, and accordingly, the judgment of more than $350 million should be reversed."
The ACLJ said James' agenda against Trump "represents a grave miscarriage of justice and a dangerous precedent that should alarm all freedom-loving Americans. This verdict is not about upholding the law – it's about weaponizing the legal system to punish political opponents and intimidate conservative voices."
The legal team explained what already had been documented in court hearings: "There are no victims claiming harm here. Banks and insurance companies involved in Trump's business dealings have not alleged any losses. But the trial judge ruled that there did not need to be victims, damages, or even an intent to harm anyone under the so-called 'fraud' statute."
The team explained that James' "selective enforcement of the law reeks of political bias. During her campaign for AG, James repeatedly vowed to target Trump, even before having access to any evidence. This clearly demonstrates her predetermined intent to use the power of her office for political purposes."
The ACLJ continued, "By pursuing legal action against Trump based on his outspoken conservative views and policies, James is effectively attempting to criminalize protected political speech. This sets a chilling precedent for all Americans who dare to challenge the liberal establishment. The use of state power to harass and intimidate political opponents is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, not a free republic. James' actions represent a dangerous abuse of prosecutorial discretion."
The legal team pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on similar circumstances, determining that "another New York official violated the First Amendment when she targeted the speech of the NRA" in a case.
The ACLJ continued, "The ACLJ has long warned about the dangers of politically motivated prosecutions. The case against President Trump is a prime example of how the Left seeks to use the legal system as a weapon to silence conservative voices and consolidate power."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden reportedly was diagnosed with COVID during a Nevada campaign trip last week – just before he made a social media post online over the weekend dropping out of the 2024 race for the Democrat party nomination for president.
But multiple reports now are revealing that Biden's health issue probably was much worse than COVID. In fact, it may have been a transient ischemic attack, often called a "ministroke," and that can be very serious for an 81-year-old like Biden who previously has had aneurysms, including one in 1988 that nearly was fatal.
Such circumstances would explain why he's not been seen in nearly a week, since Air Force One returned him to Delaware from Las Vegas on a flight that was so fast the plane "shook," according to witnesses.
"Law enforcement and medical teams gathered outside the University Medical Center trauma room entrance on Wellness Way in case the president of the United States arrived after he canceled an appearance at the Unidos US Convention in Las Vegas due to testing positive for COVID-19," the report said.
Instead, however, Biden's entourage was diverted from the hospital to the airport and Air Force One.
Reporter Jordan Schachtel then explained that Biden suffered an "undisclosed medical emergency," citing police sources.
His report said the official word from the White House that Biden had "respiratory symptoms" and "general malaise," but "we are told a very different story."
"We have verified that several of the core elements in Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk's viral X post from Monday are indeed true, according to law enforcement sources."
Kirk, in fact, reported that Biden had first been scheduled to be rushed to the Las Vegas hospital, with police closing "necessary streets to that POTUS could be transported immediately."
He reported then word was that Biden was being taken to Johns Hopkins, and later it was change again to have Biden taken to Delaware.
Schachtel reported his organization "obtained independent testimony from over half a dozen law enforcement officers who participated in the president's security detail, and others who spoke from firsthand knowledge of the incident that unfolded that day."
He reported, during Biden's campaigning, "all hell broke loose."
"Several law enforcement officers on duty that day were informed over the radio that the president was dealing with an unspecified medical emergency. Far from a case of the sniffles, this was sent out on encrypted police airwaves as if something akin to a five-alarm fire had broken out. Our sources estimate that it was 'easily' hundreds of Las Vegas Metropolitan officers and employees who heard the broadcasts live, so a curious media shouldn't have a problem reporting any follow-ups to this story. The dispatches made clear that this was much more than a mere change of plans, because it set into motion so much of their on-duty emergency response apparatus."
He noted, "Emily Goodin, the senior white house correspondent for The Daily Mail, reported that on the journey back east, Air Force One 'flew so fast the plane shook,' arriving in Dover in just 3 hours and 48 minutes."
Reports confirm a normal travel time for that route would be nearly five hours.
Schachtel reported, "Several of the officers we spoke to said this was indeed being reported and acted upon as a full-blown medical emergency, insisting that a simple positive COVID-19 test would not have warranted such a drastic, massive response."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered the state of New York to answer to charges in a lawsuit filed by the state of Missouri that it is interfering in the presidential election.
It is accused of "illegally scheming" to jail President Donald Trump, the GOP nominee for the 2024 election.
It is Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey who has brought the case, charging that, "New York is waging war on American Democracy – and Missouri will not let it stand."
The state is accused of an "illicit prosecution, gag order, and sentencing of President Trump" and the state is accused of deliberately undermining "his ability to campaign."
Such overt actions, the case complains, "sabotages Missourians' ability to cast a well-informed vote…"
Under the Constitution, such a claim of improper behavior made by one state against another goes directly to the Supreme Court.
Missouri's case asks that the Supreme Court determine New York illegally interfered with the election.
Trump was found guilty by a jury in leftist-Manhattan of business reporting violations in a trial rife with misbehavior.
The prosecutor took misdemeanors for which the statute of limitations had expired and claimed they were felonies because they were in furtherance of another, unspecified, crime. The judge's daughter was fundraising for Democrats off her father's courtroom decisions, and despite the appearance of conflict, he refused to exit the case.
The prosecution's chief witness was a convicted perjurer.
WND reported when the case was developing, Bailey explained, "We have to fight back against a rogue prosecutor who is trying to take a presidential candidate off the campaign trail. It sabotages Missourians' right to a free and fair election."
The Western Journal reported Bailey explained, "Radical progressives in New York are trying to rig the 2024 election. We have to stand up and fight back."
"The investigations and subsequent prosecutions of former President Donald J. Trump appear to have been conducted in coordination with the United States Department of Justice," he said.