This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The judiciary contingent that has aligned itself in a series of cases against President Donald Trump and other Americans is being blasted for violating, over and over, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines.

The condemnation comes from Lawrence Kadish, who serves on the board of governors of The Gatestone Institute.

"It is high time," he said, "to call on all judges and patriots to put a stop to crimes committed by those who have been elected or appointed to uphold the laws of the nation and the U.S. Constitution, but who instead have been violating the law and assaulting the Constitution – sadly with impunity."

There have been several examples of egregious federal decisions, such as the determination not to charge when ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allegedly obstructed justice by reportedly ordering her staff to destroy 33,000 subpoenaed emails with BleachBit and smash two of her 13 BlackBerry mobile devices, he said.

Then, too, he said, Joe Biden has intentionally defied the Supreme Court's ruling that he was not authorized to make taxpayers pay some $138 billion that was loaned to college students.

First Amendment violations abound in the government, he said, citing the orchestrated efforts by the FBI and others to "quash the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop."

Or "calling true medical information false during the COVID-19 pandemic."

But now the Eighth Amendment has been in the bull's eye, he explained.

First, there has been "governmental abuse of power, astronomically out of control" against those who "supposedly walked through 'the people's house'" on January 6, 2021.

And just as bad are the violations by "district attorneys and at least one judge" in a series of attacks on President Donald Trump, he said.

"We have seen N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James campaigning for election on a platform of 'get Trump' -- for what was never even mentioned," he noted. "It is the same process used by Stalin's head of the Soviet secret police (NKVD), Lavrentiy Beria, who reportedly said, 'Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.'"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Stephen Breyer, who sat on the U.S. Supreme Court for nearly three decades before resigning in 2022, has written a book, like so many others who come out of the Washington, D.C., swamp, and is on a tour promoting it.

As part of those interviews, he's lashed out at the rest of the court for overturning the faulty and unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision that created a "right" to abortion, and also promoted his personal ideology of a changeable U.S. Constitution.

And he's getting blasted, in a house editorial at the Washington Examiner, for his warping of the nation's foundation document.

"The learned justice says his method of judging is needed as a model for successors because 'the world does change,' so if the court doesn’t interpret the Constitution as evolvable, too, 'we will have a Constitution that no one wants.' Therefore, he says repeatedly, his method 'involves purposes, consequences, values, and sometimes much more.'

"This sounds high-minded and reasonable, but it is bunk. Even worse, it is a power grab subject to no limiting principle, especially when he goes into an open-ended 'much more' phase. Breyer treats as paramount the jurist’s subjective assessment of 'values and sometimes much more,' as if he possesses Olympian wisdom about such matter above that of mere mortals. This would turn representative democracy into an elitist oligarchy, a rule by nine supposedly wise men and women, against America’s constitutional design that deliberately separates, disperses, and blends power in multitudinous ways intended to safeguard liberty."

Breyer quit the court at a time when Joe Biden was able to push Ketanji Jackson, a far-left ideologue adored by leftists, onto the bench.

The Examiner noted that Breyer's comments suggest he basically puts judges "above the law."

Breyer's writings claim to make a case for using "pragmatism," or adjusting the Constitution to circumstances, rather than reading it as it was originally written.

"What Breyer’s suggestion amounts to is the anti-democratic idea that judges should be free to twist what the law says to suit their own prejudices — that is, they should be above the law rather than servants of it."

The piece explained what America's founders set up: "In a republic, applying 'values' and trying to create the right 'consequences' is the job not of judges but of the people’s elected representatives, or of the people themselves. The Constitution, as fundamental law enacted by the people, is supreme. Statutes written via representative procedures are next. The reason judges, ultimately Supreme Court justices, are final arbiters of what the law means is not because they possess superior moral or value-based perspicacity, but because they are supposed to be the most learned in parsing the words of laws to ensure they are applied faithfully. Jurists are supposed to be guided and humbly governed by the words of the law, not by willful masters over them."

It continued, "Breyer’s 'pragmatism' … invites the mischief of judicial willfulness, unmoored from objective restraints, applied by nine people acting as philosopher kings."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Hunter Biden's former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, was a key congressional witness in the House investigation into whether Joe Biden committed crimes for which he should face impeachment. Now he has filed a $30 million defamation action against Fox News entertainer Jessica Tarlov.

Bobulinski's testimony has confirmed that Joe Biden indeed did participate in his son Hunter's influence-peddling scheme through which Biden family members gained tens of millions of dollars.

Bobulinski, on Thursday, released a statement, "Today I filed a lawsuit against Ms. Jessica Tarlov of Fox News for defamation. Although I am seeking compensatory, special, and punitive damages from her for the damage her public remarks inflicted on my personal and professional reputation, this is not about money. This is about the truth, for which I have been fighting for four years."

He continued, "It is important for media personalities like Ms. Tarlov to understand that lies have consequences. I have consistently told the truth to the American people about the deep corruption of the Biden family and will continue to do so, and I have paid my legal expenses arising from my decision to come forward out of my own pocket. I will donate every penny I may be awarded in this suit to a children’s hospital and to support our military Veterans. Ms. Tarlov refused to apologize and sincerely correct the record. I look forward to holding her accountable in a court of law and to continuing to bring the truth to the American people."

The complaint shows the case was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York and charges Tarlov, on Fox News, "lied" about Bobulinski and Stefan Passantino, saying that Mr. Bobulinski's legal fees are being paid by a "Trump Super PAC as recently as January 2024."

The comment came as Tarlov was talking about Bobulinski's appearance before the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

"Tarlov lied to achieve media headlines and ratings and to serve her political agenda by deliberately besmirching the character of Messrs. Bobulinski and Passantino," the complaint charges.

"The assertion was unequivocally false and defamatory, and plaintiffs demanded a complete retraction and apology," it states. But Tarlov "petulantly" did not.

He confirms in the court filing that he worked with Hunter Biden and was witness to a partnership between the "Chinese Communist Party/Chairman Ye through their surrogate, China Energy Company Limited, a CCP-linked Chinese energy conglomerate, and the Biden family."

The filing states, "Bobulinski confirmed that he saw, firsthand, that Hunter Biden would frequently go to his father for his approval or advice for various business deals."

It was just days ago that he appeared to testify before Congress, accompanied by his lawyer, Passantino.

After that hearing, Tarlov said, "Tony Bobulinski's lawyers' fees have been paid by a Trump Super PAC. That's as recent as January."

The filing says she later "clarified" that she has "seen no indication" that PAC payments were made "in connection to Mr. Bobulinski's legal fees."

"Tarlov was aware at the time she made them that these false statements invoking President Trump would inflame a segment of the country against Mr. Bobulinski and Mr. Passantino and would falsely cause her viewers to disbelieve Mr. Bobulinski's sworn testimony," the filing charges.

Tarlov is accused of having "a well-established pattern of hostile and malicious intent to defame the character and reputation of anyone associated with President Trump."

And it reveals Bobulinski has paid all of his own legal fees.

The case seeks $30 million in compensatory, special and punitive damages, plus costs.

Fox told WND, "Jessica Tarlov’s March 21st statements were accurate and made clear that she was not aware of anything to indicate that payments from a Trump PAC to Elections, LLC were made in connection with Tony Bobulinski’s legal fees. We stand by our decision to not issue any further corrections and will vigorously defend against these inaccurate claims."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Disney is dropping its lawsuits against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, apparently giving up its fight against his decision to pull the massive corporation's special status as its government that was granted to the Magic Kingdom years ago.

The fight over Disney's authority to run the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which essentially made it its government, erupted because the company attacked the state for trying to protect children in schools from the influences of an LGBT ideology.

Disney officials repeatedly blasted the state for what critics, inaccurately, have called a new "Don't Say Gay" law that doesn't say that. It just, as its name states, provides "Parental Rights in Education."

The state of Florida responded to the attack by canceling Disney's Reedy Creek authorities and replacing it with a new state board to govern the district, putting Disney on the same level as other companies in Florida.

Now a report from the Daily Mail reveals Disney is dropping its legal actions opposing DeSantis' moves.

The report called the decision "a major win" for the new board overseeing the land of Disney.

"The settlement agreement on Wednesday includes Disney acknowledging eleventh-hour deals it made with the outgoing Reedy Creek Improvement District are now null and void," the report said.

At the time the new state district was being created, Disney reached special deals with the old Reedy Creek board, which it controlled, to take over a long list of governmental functions under the new board.

The report noted, "Walt Disney Co. made these last-ditch efforts in an attempt to solidify property rights and grant the theme park additional powers as DeSantis appointed a new board to oversee the area and hold the corporation accountable to laws and taxes in Orlando."

It was then-Disney CEO Bob Chapek who publicly attacked the governor's policies on education and specifically his plans for protecting parental rights in education.

"No corporation should be its government," DeSantis' communications director, Bryan Griffin, said of the action on the lawsuits.

He said, "Moving forward, we stand ready to work with Disney and the district to help promote economic growth, family-friendly tourism, and accountable government in Central Florida."

The report said the settlement sees Disney acknowledging the invalid nature of its special deals with the now-defunct Reedy Creek district.

The new district is the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board.

Disney, long a staple for children's entertainment, in recent years, has gone more and more "woke," injecting social agendas into its products, which frequently have been huge disappointments commercially.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Well, that was quick.

On Sunday, Ronna Romney McDaniel, the former chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, made her debut on "Meet the Press" as a paid contributor to NBC News.

Now, reports indicate the network is dropping her, and McDaniel is lawyering up.

"The former top Republican has responded by seeking legal representation after the sudden ousting, as reported by Puck News," the Daily Mail reported.

SCOOP @PuckNews: NBC NEWS plans to drop ex RNC-chair Ronna McDaniel as a paid contributor following on-air revolt from NBC/MSNBC talent. Execs are deliberating over details; announcement pending. Meanwhile, McDaniel is seeking legal representation.

Full details, scoops &…

— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) March 26, 2024

A WND reported Sunday, that Chuck Todd, the former host of NBC's "Meet the Press," erupted on his bosses over the network's hiring of McDaniel moments after she made her debut.

He told the show's new host, Kristin Welker, that NBC should apologize for having Welker interview McDaniel, who resigned her position on March 8 when it became clear former President Donald Trump would clinch the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

"Let me deal with the elephant in the room," Todd said. "I think our bosses owe you an apology for putting you in this situation because I don't know what to believe."

"She is now a paid contributor by NBC News," he told Welker. "I have no idea whether any answer she gave to you was because she didn't want to mess up her contract."

WATCH: Chuck Todd just attacked his own network, NBC News, over hiring Ronna McDaniel. "Our bosses owe you an apology for putting you in this situation," he told Kristen Welker on Meet the Press. "There's a reason why there's a lot of journalists at NBC News uncomfortable with… pic.twitter.com/gjjhy7s4TN

— TV News Now (@TVNewsNow) March 24, 2024

"She wants us to believe that she was speaking for the RNC when the RNC was paying for it. So, she has credibility issues that she still has to deal with. Is she speaking for herself or is she speaking on behalf of who's paying her? Once at the RNC, she did say that. 'Hey, I'm speaking for the party.' I get that, that's part of the job. So, what about here?" he asked.

"Look, there's a reason why there are a lot of journalists at NBC News uncomfortable with this," Todd said. "Because many of our professional dealings with the RNC over the last six years have been met with gaslighting and have been met with character assassination."

"When NBC decided to give her NBC News' credibility, you got to ask yourself, what does she bring NBC News? And when we make deals like this, and I've been at this company a long time, you're doing it for access. Access to audience. Sometimes it's access to an individual. And we can have a journalistic ethics debate about that. And I'm willing to have that debate," Todd added.

WATCH: Former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel says she doesn’t support freeing those charged and convicted with crimes related to January 6th — something Donald Trump has promised to do if re-elected.@kwelkernbc: “Why not speak out earlier?”@RonnaMcDaniel: “When you’re the RNC… pic.twitter.com/9wqOoKnUdR

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) March 24, 2024

MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow called McDaniel's hiring "inexplicable," and indicated she hoped network executives would "reconsider that decision."

Glenn Greenwald, a journalist who co-founded the Intercept, noted such "melodrama" is absent when Democrat "operatives" are hired by networks.

"NBC negotiated a contract with Jen Psaki while she was White House Press Secretary," Greenwald posted on X.

"ABC hired George Stephanopoulos -- directly from the Clinton WH, with no journalism experience. All these networks hire operatives from the US Security State. It never prompts this melodrama."

NBC negotiated a contract with Jen Psaki while she was White House Press Secretary.

ABC hired George Stephanopoulos -- directly from the Clinton WH, with no journalism experience.

All these networks hire operatives from the US Security State.

It never prompts this melodrama: https://t.co/ToExKFxiI8

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 24, 2024

Former Trump White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer noted: "Did [Chuck Todd] ever show concern about Jen Psaki joining the left-wing network?... Didn't think so."

Ronna McDaniel is the granddaughter of late Michigan Gov. George Romney and niece of Utah Sen. Mitt Romney.

One creative commenter on X, apparently not thrilled with McDaniel, superimposed a distasteful image over the Republican's face, and played a clip of her saying, "Now I get to be a little bit more myself."

Former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel on NBC Meet The Press

“Now I can be myself” #BoycottMeetThePress pic.twitter.com/BM2npVBe0n

— PoliticalPuertoRican (@PRMemes_) March 24, 2024

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

There's no doubt, whether deliberate or simply a component of a failing memory, Joe Biden repeatedly has lied about his experiences.

There are train stories that physically couldn't have happened. There are his conversations with world leaders who were dead at the time. There are his claims that he never was even aware of what was going on with Hunter Biden's business schemes.

All demonstrably false.

But there's been no obvious fallout from any.

But that soon may change, according to a report in the Washington Free Beacon.

It's because he told one of his famous stories to special counsel Robert Hur. Under oath.

The report explains Biden for decades repeatedly has claimed he got into politics because of a legal case that left him upset at the outset of his career.

The report explained Biden was "fresh out of law school and working as a clerk at a high-powered Wilmington, Delaware, law firm" and claimed to have been tapped to defend a construction company sued by a 23-year-old welder who was injured in a fire.

His story goes that because of Biden's "shrewd legal defense," the worker lost the case and the construction company got off.

"I wrote this memo. And son of a b----, it prevailed," Biden told Hur during an October 8 interview. "And I looked over at that kid … that I thought, 'son of a b----, I'm in the wrong business. I'm not made for this.'"

Hur was interviewing Biden regarding his "willful" taking and keeping of classified documents belonging to the government during his time as senator and vice president.

Hur found much evidence to support a federal criminal charge but recommended against filing counts because of Biden's "diminished" capacities.

The report explained Biden claimed to be "so wracked with guilt" over the case he went and applied for a job in a public defender's office.

However, the report explained Biden's narrative "is almost certainly a complete work of fiction."

For instance, the case handled by the firm defending a construction company finished in 1968, "while Biden was still in law school. And the welder won, walking away with $315,000, more than $2.8 million in 2024 dollars," the report said.

The report pointed out that Biden ended his 1988 presidential campaign "amid allegations that he had plagiarized speeches," actually does have a long record of "embellishments and yarn spinning."

"He claimed in November 2023 that he was offered a spot on the Naval Academy's football team" and even insisted "he never spoke with his son, Hunter Biden, about the latter's foreign business dealings."

The Free Beacon said its reporting was based on the records of the National Archives and news reports from that time, as well as interviews with the law firm's members.

The report said Biden has delivered varying versions of the welder story and told Hur he got job offers from several "prestigious law firms" because of his good looks.

He said he took a job at Prickett, Ward, Burt & Sanders.

The claims, however, don't align with Biden's 2007 book, where he said "he had very few job prospects after his 1968 graduation from Syracuse University Law School and that Prickett took a chance on him, offering him a role despite his poor grades – including the F he received in a torts class after he was caught plagiarizing."

Biden claims that he was tapped to draft a motion to dismiss the case involving the construction case, Catalytic Construction, which had been sued by a welder.

He claimed he argued the welder's failure to wear protective gear meant that the company was off the hook, the report said.

But there are no records available that lined up with that scenario, the Free Beacon said.

"Biden's story bears a striking resemblance to a case Prickett took on while Biden was still an undergraduate … Some of the language Biden used in recounting the incident to Hur matches that found in an article published by the Wilmington News-Journal, which Biden reportedly reads daily," the report said.

The details of that case are unclear, but it ended with a federal jury awarding the welder $315,000.

But, the report noted, Biden was 21 and completing his junior year at the time, and was finishing his law school when a federal jury ruled against the company four years later.

The case was ended by the time he started working for Prickett, and no appeal was filed.

A spokesman for the Prickett firm told the Free Beacon the company was familiar with the claim in Biden's book, but no one could confirm anything, as the records from the case no longer existed.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

An expert who has written often on terrorism, the war on terror and Islam is openly suggesting the Biden regime is trying to overthrow the elected government in Israel to "save Hamas."

Hamas, of course, is the Islamic terror organization from Gaza that dispatched its butchers into Israel on October 7 where they killed some 1,200 civilians, including burning whole families alive and beheading babies.

The new comments come from Daniel Greenfield, a columnist who also has written on socialism, the politically incorrect, politics from around the world, and more.

He's also the Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his latest concerns are raised on the website for the Gatestone Institute.

He notes that one Israeli expert "frequently consulted by American officials says, 'I have been asked by a serious administration figure what it is that will force the Netanyahu coalition to collapse. They were interested in the mechanics, what can we demand which will collapse his coalition.'"

Then, he warns, "Our intelligence apparatus is rotted through with Islamic terror supporters and sympathizers."

He explains that since the Hamas terror attack on Israeli civilians, the Biden administration has abandoned its backing of Israel's efforts to remove Hamas.

Now it backs "the effort by Hamas allies from Dearborn, Michigan to Doha, Qatar to overthrow the Israeli government to save Hamas."

He explains, "'What can we demand which will collapse his coalition' is revealing as hell. The Obama administration was infamous for trying to use pressure on Israel to create splits inside its coalition government. Biden's people are trying to do the same thing."

He cited the 2024 "Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community" from Biden's director of National Intelligence, which claims, "Netanyahu's viability as a leader as well as his governing coalition of far-right and ultraorthodox parties that pursued hardline policies on Palestinian and security issues may be in jeopardy. Distrust of Netanyahu's ability to rule has deepened and broadened across the public from its already high levels before the war, and we expect large protests demanding his resignation and new elections. A different, more moderate government is a possibility."

Greenfield pointed out that the 2023 and 2022 assessments "analyzed terrorist activity in the region. As they should be doing."

Further, the Biden regime ODNI targets "only two world leaders, Israel's Prime Minister Benjmain Netanyahu and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi. One guess as to what they have in common. They both oppose Islamic terrorism."

He said, "The 2024 ODNI assessment treats Netanyahu like a leader to be overthrown and suggests that this would be a good outcome. It's a hostile act from a hostile administration that is doing everything it can to save Islamic terrorists."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One of the biggest talking points that Nancy Pelosi's partisan Jan. 6 committee, which essentially worked to blame President Donald Trump for the riot that day in 2021, used was that Trump refused to authorize National Guard troops to protect the Capitol.

Only he didn't. Evidence now shows he told Democrat officials that he would authorize up to 10,000 to be on hand that day.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new investigation has been launched by Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., into allegations of IRS corruption, that the feared and powerful federal bureaucracy is using artificial intelligence to spy on taxpayers' bank accounts and financial records "en masse."

And without a legal reason.

The two members of Congress have written Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Attorney General Merrick Garland requiring their cooperation with a review of the situation that was brought on after the IRS itself boasted of using AI technology in its hunt for tax money.

The members explain, in an announcement about their review, "Recent reporting alleges that the IRS's use of AI has also included actively monitoring American citizens' bank accounts en masse and without legal process."

They explained that video footage obtained by an investigative media outlet, James O'Keefe's O'Keefe Media Group, "appears to capture Alex Mena, an IRS official working in the agency’s Criminal Investigations Unit, admitting that the IRS has 'a new system' that uses AI to target 'potential abusers' by examining all returns, bank statements, and related financial information for 'potential for fraud.'

"Mena asserted that the new AI system has the ability to access and monitor 'all the information from all the companies in the world.' In the video, Mena suggested that the AI-powered system can 'see the amount' in every American’s bank account, adding that this 'invasive' system is 'working really well nationwide.' Mena also noted that IRS agents 'have no problem, like, going after the small people, you know, putting people in prison. Like destroying people's lives, they have no problem doing that.' When asked whether the system is constitutional, Mena replied, 'I doubt it,'" the members of Congress charge.

Investigating are the Committee on the Judiciary and its Select Subcommittee reviewing the Biden administration's weaponization of the federal government against those it sees as enemies in America.

"The committee and its select subcommittee have reason to believe that the IRS and Department of Justice are actively monitoring millions of Americans' private transactions, bank accounts, and related financial information – without any legal process – using an AI-powered system" they charged.

Those actions raise "serious doubts about the federal government's respect for Americans' fundamental civil liberties."

They also want to interview Mena.

The members of Congress said, "The Committee and Select Subcommittee have reason to believe that the IRS is working with other federal agencies to conduct this AI-powered warrantless financial surveillance. In the video, Mena stated that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 'Inspector General' control this AI-powered warrantless surveillance system, 'not the IRS.' Additionally, the Treasury Department's February 28, 2024 press release makes clear that the Treasury Department's Office of Payment Integrity (OPI) has a 'strong partnership with federal law enforcement agencies,' which has 'led to multiple active cases and arrests.' These allegations are particularly concerning given the IRS's track record of targeting, harassing, and intimidating American taxpayers and journalists and history of ignoring due process requirements when investigating taxpayers."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Ketanji Jackson, Joe Biden's only appointment, so far, to the U.S. Supreme Court, was the butt of a multitude of jokes and guffaws this week because she fretted about the First Amendment "hamstringing" the federal government's attempts to censor speech and thought.

After all, the purpose of the First Amendment was to control the federal government's attempts to censor speech and thought.

Her blunder came in Supreme Court arguments in a case in which people censored by social media companies – at the behest of the Biden administration – during COVID and more challenged the scheme on First Amendment grounds.

The evidence shows that Biden's bureaucrats worked hard to coerce social media companies to suppress, even banish, that speech and those thoughts that conflicted with Biden's agenda.

Jackson fretted, "My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important periods."

Now a report from Margot Cleveland at The Federalist points out that wasn't even the worst of Jackson's blunders.

The report noted that "even worse" was what she said shortly after.

"So can you help me? Because I’m really — I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective," Jackson told Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga. Why couldn’t the government communicate with social media companies then? Jackson queried.

The report noted free-speech advocates "rightfully" blasted Jackson for her hamstring complaint since her statement "laid bare the fundamental disdain she and other politically liberal justices hold for the classically liberal freedoms our Constitution protects."

Aguiñaga had responded that the government could communicate with tech companies but in doing so, must abide by the First Amendment.

"Lost in this exchange, however, was the horror of Justice Jackson’s premise — that the government outreaches would depend on federal officials' 'perspective' of 'threatening circumstances,'" the report said.

"Five years ago, that proposition might not have seemed so shocking because Americans hadn’t yet lived through the dual outrage of near-universal capitulation to the government’s requests for censorship and the wrongheadedness of the federal government’s 'perspective' of 'threatening circumstances.' Absent that lived experience, it might have been possible to imagine the government would only solicit Big Tech’s cooperation when truly faced with 'threatening circumstances,' or that the social media companies would refuse to remove third parties’ posts, absent a sincere danger," the report said.

But it explained the case's court record shows "the government’s 'perspective' of 'threatening circumstances' can be both dangerously wrong and politically motivated."

The report pointed to the evidence:

The federal government viewed anything prompting “vaccine hesitancy” as threatening public health. It also maintained that masking and school closures were necessary to protect Americans against Covid. These “perspectives” of “threatening circumstances” flowing from the pandemic led the government to demand that social media companies block users and posts discussing adverse effects of Covid shots or arguing against masking and school closures. But the government was wrong about all of it, and those censored were right. Had the government not successfully silenced such speech, Americans would have been better armed with facts to make important health and public policy decisions.

Then there were the political motives behind the government's insistence media corporations block information about the New York Post's reporting on Biden family scandals uncovered in a laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden.

"Once again, the banned speech was true, and Americans were prevented from learning vital information before the election due to the government’s efforts to persuade Big Tech to block supposed 'hack or leak' material. (Turns out, the Hunter Biden laptop was no such material.)," The report said.

Jackson went even further astray from the Constitution, the report explained, when she insisted "we have a test" for the First Amendment, and it's not whether there's "abridgment" of speech.

Yet that's exactly what the amendment requires, the report notes.

Her earlier comment was, "My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important periods. … And so I guess some might say that the government must take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information."

Fox and Friends Weekends co-host Will Cain confirmed, "Hamstringing the government is THE POINT of the First Amendment!"

And California state Rep. Bill Essayli, in the report, confirmed, "That’s the point of the Bill of Rights. The government’s powers derive from, and are subservient to, the rights of the People."