Hillary followed it with the statement that the perps needed to be found and brought to justice. Here’s her testimony;

The Trump administration decided to do just that: find them and bring them to justice, all these years later. That is, at least one of them has been apprehended:

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Friday that Zubayr Al-Bakoush was flown to the United States overnight and will face federal charges tied to arson, murder, and terrorism for his alleged role in the assault that killed four Americans. …

“We will prosecute this alleged terrorist to the fullest extent of the law,” she said, adding that the message is simple: time does not erase accountability.

Pirro echoed that warning, stressing that the case is not over simply because years have passed. “The Benghazi saga was a painful one for Americans. It has stayed with all of us,” she said. “And let me be very clear, there are more of them out there.” Pirro said she and Patel have remained in contact with the families of the four Americans killed and vowed that investigators will continue hunting down those still at large. “Time will not stop us from going after these predators, no matter how long it takes,” she said. “We owe that to the families who suffered horrific pain at the hands of these violent terrorists.”

The post Benghazi: “Find them and bring them to justice” said Hillary many years ago appeared first on The New Neo.

Soros, 94, was among the 19 people chosen to receive the nation’s highest civilian honor at the White House, a group that included U2 frontman Bono, actor Denzel Washington and former senator Hillary Clinton — who also was panned as a recipient.

“George Soros spent millions electing soft-on-crime politicians that let criminals wreak havoc in our major cities,” Montana Senator Tim Sheehy told The Post. “Hillary Clinton abandoned our Navy SEALs in Libya.”

To the left those things are features, not bugs. And still another feature is outraging the right.

The post Honoring George Soros and Hillary Clinton appeared first on The New Neo.

So Bill Clinton goes to Michigan and speaks to an Arab-American group and essentially tells them that HAMAS F’d up on Oct 7 when they butchered Israelis and he goes on to say that because HAMAS hides behind civilians, it is Hamas’ fault that civilians in Gaza are getting killed.

Don’t know – and don’t care – if his comments will help/hurt the CACKLER, but it’s not that often a demonkrat tells the truth and calls it like it is.

Of course, conservative outlets are claiming (in their stupidity) , that Clinton is just trying to sand bag the CACKLER’S campaign and it’s part of an Obama vs Clinton “war.”

The Clinton’s may not like Obama, but there is no way on earth that they would prefer to see Trump in office.

I can’t say I have the inside track on Clinton mindreading, but I can easily see a way on earth that they would prefer a Trump victory. It’s really rather simple: Hillary was supposed to have been the first woman president. She has nursed a nearly decades-long grievance at having lost to the likes of Trump. In addition, she’s so far the only person that has. Even the cognitively-challenged Biden won, whether by hook or crook or fair and square. So at the moment Hillary bears the distinction of being the first female presidential nominee but failing to win, and being the only person who lost to Trump.

I think you can see where I’m going: if Kamala were to win it would add insult to injury, because Kamala would be the first woman president. And Hillary would remain the only person who ever lost to Trump.

Plus, maybe – just maybe – Bill found anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment a bridge too far. So there’s that, too. I never got the impression that either Bill or Hillary were onboard with Obama’s anti-Israel actions and enabling of Iran, and I recall that Hillary quit her SOS job in the beginning of Obama’s second term. Why? Whether she was forced out or whether it was voluntary, I thought she had some disagreements with Obama’s foreign policy and the main one involved Iran. She was replaced with John Kerry, who was fully onboard.

The Clintons also have a Jewish son-in-law, much like Trump. Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism and Chelsea has not – but still, it may be a factor as well.

The post Bill and Hillary and Kamala Harris: do they want her to win? appeared first on The New Neo.

It seems as though there have been so many rapid-fire events starting with Trump’s 2016 election that it’s easy to forget many of the details. But I think it’s very instructive to take a little stroll down memory lane from time to time. The article is from 12/17/16 [my emphasis]:

On Monday, members of the Electoral College will cast their historic votes for the next president of the United States. In the meantime, they are under siege.

The nation’s 538 presidential electors have been thrust into the political foreground like never before in American history. In the aftermath of a uniquely polarizing presidential contest, the once-anonymous electors are squarely in the spotlight, targeted by death threats, harassing phone calls and reams of hate mail. One Texas Republican elector said he’s been bombarded with more than 200,000 emails.

Trump had been elected, but it seems it was perfectly okay to try to harass his electors and even to threaten them, in order to get them to vote for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the perpetrators should have been tracked down and charged with obstructing an official proceeding (or at least attempting to do so)? After all, that has been one of the most common charges against the J6 demonstrators of 2021, including peaceful ones. But back in 2016 Republican lawyers were nowhere near as creative as Democrat lawyers became in twisting statutes into something they never were meant to be, in order to charge the opposition with crimes.

More [my emphasis, and my remarks in brackets]:

In recent decades, the Electoral College had become such a reliable rubber stamp of Election Day results that it was viewed as an afterthought.

But with many Democrats desperate to block the all-but-certain ascension of Donald Trump to the White House, this long-neglected body has been gripped by turmoil, and its members have been subjected to pleas to upend centuries of tradition by casting their votes for someone other than the president-elect.

There have been ad campaigns targeting electors and op-eds assailing their role. One Democratic member of Congress has called to delay the vote for president while an investigation of Russian involvement in the election is underway [isn’t that very similar to requests from Trump supporters in 2020?]. Two others have pleaded with electors to consider Russia’s role when deciding how to vote. Progressive groups are preparing protests across the country at sites where electors will meet to cast their ballots [sounds like a planned “insurrection” to me]. Personal contact information for many electors has been posted publicly — and it’s been used to bury them with massive email campaigns.

There were indeed demonstrations, although they were pretty tame. But the people involved certainly tried to obstruct an official proceeding. For example, in Wisconsin:

There were demonstrations in other states, too, and of course this happened in Congress:

The post Remember the olden days of 2016, when it was okay to mess with electors? appeared first on The New Neo.

“A bloodbath.” What would you say if you saw this in another country? https://t.co/aUnNAoAWfE

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 18, 2024

Such a useful truncated quote to spread around.

I was listening to a podcast made yesterday by the Ayn Rand Center, and the people speaking – who are definitely not on the left, but who also do not like Donald Trump – were repeating the “bloodbath” meme as though it were true. Even though they are people who are usually quite alert to propaganda and quite good at rejecting and even debunking it, it was shocking that they had bought into the propaganda. But the truth about that particular quote from Trump hadn’t reached them even by yesterday. That brought home to me (once more, with feeling) the power and reach of a lie, and how entrenched it can become despite evidence that ought to invalidate it in everyone’s minds.

I wonder how many people who think they hate Trump are basing their opinions almost solely on lies told about him over the years?

And speaking of bloodbaths:

Look, the journos at @politico like to incite violence in all of these headlines with “bloodbath.”

I’m not going to give you the context though, because that would be actual journalism. pic.twitter.com/xEUombHyIM

— Thomas Stevenson (@RealTStevenson) March 17, 2024

It’s such a common expression that it’s included in the dictionary pic.twitter.com/YQDkjtIrQ5

— Justine (@BruinJustine) March 18, 2024

The post More on the spread of the “bloodbath” hoax appeared first on The New Neo.

And Blinken just keeps getting worse:

“Israelis were dehumanized in the most horrific way on October 7, ”said Blinken in prepared remarks at a Tel Aviv press conference. “The hostages have been dehumanized every day since. But that cannot be a license to dehumanize others.”

The White House has not hidden its dissatisfaction with Israel over civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip and the humanitarian situation there throughout the war, but Wednesday’s critique was the harshest to date.

Cycle of violence yada yada. Fighting back against murderous terrorists who hide behind civilians is just like going out of your way to violate a ceasefire and torture and murder civilians. Got it, Blinken.

And then there’s Hillary:

“Netanyahu should go. He is not a trustworthy leader. It was on his watch that the [October 7] attack happened. He needs to go, and if he’s an obstacle to a ceasefire, if he’s an obstacle to exploring what’s to be done the day after, he absolutely needs to go,” Clinton told MSNBC’s “Alex Wagner Tonight” in an interview.

She’s sad that the Obama-esque left can’t push Netanyahu around as well as it would like, and that he’s determined to defend Israel’s survival.

And then there’s this article on the Biden administration’s infuriating demonizing of Israeli “settlers.” You really need to read the whole thing, but here are some excerpts:

Instead of focusing on Hamas or Hezbollah, the lawmakers in attendance [early November], sources told Tablet, including senior ranking senators from both parties, wanted to focus on the risks posed by Israel—specifically, by roving bands of allegedly violent settlers in the West Bank. Lawmakers pressed the Israeli officials, going so far as to assert that uniformed IDF soldiers were escorting Israeli settlers to attack Palestinians.

Much of the information that these lawmakers were citing came from a single, ostensibly impartial source whose words carry weight in Washington in part because of his rank: Lieutenant General Michael R. Fenzel, a three-star general who currently serves as the U.S. Security Coordinator to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, colloquially known as the USSC. Fenzel’s USSC is well-known for its regular, sometimes daily briefings and reports about “extremist settlers,” which it provides to members of Congress, policy hands, Israel-related advocacy groups, as well as to foreign countries’ forces in Israel. …

According to sources in and out of the U.S. government familiar with Fenzel’s reports and advocacy, nearly every claim presented by the USSC as fact seems to have been lifted directly, sometimes verbatim, from the websites of highly partisan pro-Palestinian organizations, including the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OCHA) and the far-left Israeli NGO B’Tselem, which accuses Israel of apartheid and receives vast support from European governments and from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

In the past 12 months, 13 Israelis were murdered by Palestinians in Jerusalem and 17 in the West Bank—not counting those slaughtered on October 7, 2023—while doing nothing more provocative than driving home or stopping for gas. The number of Palestinian civilians who have been killed by Israelis under such conditions over the same time period is zero.

But the story the administration has been telling anyone who will listen is very different. By scrubbing any mention of the daily violence directed by Palestinian terror operatives against Jewish civilians living in the West Bank from his reports, Fenzel has eliminated the clear retaliatory motive for the vast majority of attacks by Israelis against West Bank Palestinians. Thinly laundered reports from expressly anti-Israel organizations, designed to support an illusion of innocent Palestinians being violently attacked by bloodthirsty Israelis, paint a picture of an Israeli equivalent to the Palestinian atrocities of Oct. 7, lending itself an easy “both-sides” posture meant to ease the way to creating a new Palestinian state in both the West Bank and Gaza. With an executive order now in place, the Biden administration has all the tools it needs to crack down on any form of Jewish life in Judea and Samaria, and on anyone, in Israel or stateside, who supports it.

This is the way Palestinian propaganda works. And many administrations, and the press, have swallowed it whole for decades. Why? Fools or knaves or both? One might say it hardly matters. But at least stupidity or ignorance can sometimes be corrected by more information. Bad intentions cannot.

More:

B’Tselem echoed OCHA’s numbers, delivering an account of how each of the eight Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians in the West Bank before Oct.7 had died. The details, buried inside an online database, paint a stark picture: Abd al-Karim Badi’a, a 21-year-old, was shot by an Israeli settler after entering the settlement armed with knives and explosive devices. 42-year-old Tareq Odeh Yusef M’aali was shot by an Israeli settler after trying to stab the same settler in a field. Muhannad Falah Abdallah Shihadah, a Hamas terorrist, was killed after murdering four Israelis, including two minors, by shooting them to death outside the Jewish community of Eli.

According to OCHA and B’Tselem, the above all count as Palestinian victims. The USSC amplifies this claim.

Biden has taken the extraordinary step of censuring four Israeli “settlers” who have been accused of such violence – accused, according to the article, by “Palestinian authorities.” The sanctions involve “imposing financial sanctions and visa bans in an initial round against four individuals.”

The evidence against these individuals is very difficult to find, but it appears to be based on Palestinian accusations. I did a quick search and came up with this sort of thing, in which the West Bank family of a victim who was a “Palestinian-American” visiting the area accuse “a settler” of killing him. The incident, also described here, is being investigated by Israel, but I can’t even find an accused perp’s name much less whether the accused was one of Biden’s four sanctioned people.

However, here’s what one of the four says about the accusations he’s facing:

Yinon Levi spoke alongside his wife, Sapir Levi, on Tuesday in their outpost in the occupied West Bank. They told ABC News they don’t understand why he was sanctioned in Biden’s executive order.

Levi was accused of inciting violence against Palestinians and burning farmland. He said he has never been involved in an attack and they have not seen any evidence.

We don’t need no steenking evidence.

More [emphasis mine]:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in a Feb. 1 statement, said Yinon Levi allegedly led a group of settlers “who engaged in actions creating an atmosphere of fear in the West Bank” and “repeatedly attacked multiple communities within the West Bank.”

“He regularly led groups of settlers from the Meitarim Farm outpost that assaulted Palestinian and Bedouin civilians, threatened them with additional violence if they did not leave their homes, burned their fields, and destroyed their property,” the statement said.

Local residents and activists told ABC News they believe Yinon Levi is shown on video operating a bulldozer to allegedly block roads in Susya in the West Bank on Oct. 16, 2023. Satellite imagery from Oct. 17, 2023, appears to show dirt disturbed over a road in Susya.

Basel Adra, who lives in a village near Susya, said Yinon Levi also destroyed water wells and agricultural fields for crops like olives and grapes.

Although ABC News could not independently verify claims of property destruction, Levi was described in the sanctions order as destroying property.

ABC News also obtained videos, from April 2022 and March 2023, of Yinon Levi with his dog discouraging Arabs from herding sheep in the area and harassing activists.

In response to the videos, Yinon Levi said “Anarchists come to our territory and do provocations. They disturb the soldiers, they attack us, the dog and the sheep on purpose and document it for provocation.”

That’s it, apparently.

The Biden administration is doing this to placate their rather large left flank by repeating the propaganda of the West Bank.

The post Israel/Palestine roundup: on the International Red Cross; Blinken; Hillary Clinton versus Netanyahu; and those violent Israeli settlers appeared first on The New Neo.

During Trump’s presidency, it got worse and worse. There were even incidents such as Jussie Smollet’s faked hate crime that supposedly was perpetrated by men in MAGA hats. Biden escalated matters with rhetoric such as his “Red Wedding” speech, and of course the persecution of the J6 defendants and the characterization of that demonstration as a “deadly insurrection.”

Therefore it’s not a new thing that the FBI has been pursuing people on the right, claiming they are dangerous terrorists. So this news is really only a slight escalation of an ongoing action:

The federal government believes that the threat of violence and major civil disturbances around the 2024 U.S. presidential election is so great that it has quietly created a new category of extremists that it seeks to track and counter: Donald Trump’s army of MAGA followers.

When last I checked, that’s half the country.

More:

The challenge for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the primary federal agency charged with law enforcement, is to pursue and prevent what it calls domestic terrorism without direct reference to political parties or affiliations—even though the vast majority of its current “anti-government” investigations are of Trump supporters, according to classified data obtained by Newsweek.

So to summarize: they’re going after one side, but they want somehow to convey the idea that they’re being even-handed. Good luck with that. Actually, people on the right already know they’re being targeted as the dangerous enemy, and people on the left think that’s what the right deserves.

More:

“Especially at a time when the White House is facing Congressional Republican opposition claiming that the Biden administration has ‘weaponized’ the Bureau against the right wing, it has to tread very carefully,” says the [unnamed FBI] official.

Earth to unnamed FBI official: it’s not just the Republican opposition “claiming” it; it’s acknowledged far more widely than that, because it’s obviously true.

And right on schedule, Hillary Clinton chimes in with an oh-so-helpful suggestion:

“I mean, we had very strong partisans in both parties in the past, and we had very bitter battles over all kinds of things: gun control, and climate change, and the economy, and taxes,” Clinton said. “But there wasn’t this little tail of extremism wagging the dog of the Republican Party as it is today, and sadly, so many of those extremists, those MAGA extremists, take their marching orders from Donald Trump, who has no credibility left by any measure.”

“He’s only in it for himself. He’s now defending himself in civil actions and criminal actions, and when do they break with him? You know, because, at some point, you know, maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members. But something needs to happen,” she added.

I especially like that word “formal.” Will the deprogrammers wear tuxedos, or will they belong to a special unit, or what?

Ah, but she didn’t mean anything so very pernicious by it. She just meant they should lose the election:

When asked how this “deprogramming” could be done, Clinton said the defeat of Trump and candidates aligned with him was the solution. Clinton, who had alleged her election loss in 2016 was illegitimate, also blasted “election deniers.”

Losing an election is always known as “formal deprogramming.” Sure thing.

And of course, there are plenty of videos of Hillary herself denying the results of the 2016 election.

The post Pack your bags: it’s off to the re-education camps with you! appeared first on The New Neo.

Andrew C. McCarthy writes:

…[There were] many ways the FBI went easy on [Hillary] Clinton, as Durham reveals the agency dropped at least four criminal investigations related to her.

The Clinton Foundation was understandably suspected by FBI agents in three different field offices — Little Rock, Washington, and New York — as a dodgy vehicle enabling donors, very much including foreign regimes and their operatives, to give goo-gobs of money to Hillary and Bill Clinton without appearing to violate the campaign finance laws.

But McCabe was infuriated, during the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, when the Wall Street Journal reported that he had tied the hands of investigators on the Clinton Foundation case…

To push back against that, McCabe had his subordinates leak that the Obama Justice Department had pressured him to shutter the Clinton Foundation probe.

This was true. In fact, it is substantiated by Durham. He found that the bureau had meetings with top Obama DOJ officials who were hostile to the investigation…

The Obama DOJ, including its appointed U.S. attorneys in Manhattan and Brooklyn, made clear to the FBI that they had no interest in a Clinton Foundation case…

This was a pattern. As Durham found, even when there may have been evidence that foreign powers were trying to cultivate Clinton and possibly try to bring her under their influence, the same FBI that couldn’t open a case on Trump fast enough became paralyzed.

As McCarthy says, it was “quite a contrast.”

And although we already knew this, at least the general outline and patterns, the details are interesting.

The question is, as usual: what to do? It’s all very well and good to say “Defund the FBI! Clear out the DOJ!” and that sort of thing. But it can’t be done without gaining political power and numbers. And does anyone think those numbers will be attained in 2024? I certainly don’t.

The post Hillary was protected from investigation by the same agencies who hounded Trump on false charges… appeared first on The New Neo.

“Raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated.” Those words from the Durham Report summed up one of the most damning investigations in the Justice Department’s history.

In the 305-page report released Monday, special counsel John Durham concluded that the Trump-Russia investigation was launched without a required minimal level of evidence and shattered a host of departmental standards. Let that sink in: The Justice Department — as well as the media that covered it — effectively shut down a duly elected presidency, based on what turned out to be a politically engineered hoax.

That would make anyone angry. Really angry. Trump-level angry.

The fact is, in this instance, Donald Trump was correct when he said he was the target of a political hitjob funded by the Clinton campaign and maintained by virtually every media outlet. There is a word for that: disinformation…

In the end, it is not a crime to be unethical or incompetent, so no charges will be filed as a result of the report. Durham clearly hopes that the belated transparency provided by his report will produce greater future accountability. That may be the only naive aspect of his findings.

Of course, the FBI promptly issued a statement that it has — once more — reformed itself in light of its failures. But who really believes this is unlikely to occur again?

Turley points out that the Hunter laptop story has been lied about by the same people, and there’s really no end in sight:

Thus, Durham was left throwing haymakers in an empty political boxing ring — and those who perpetrated this scandal on the nation are left to carry on making money on books, speeches, TV commentary and lectures about political or electoral ethics. The media, meanwhile, is offering little more than a shoulder-shrug and more spin.

If anyone needs any reminder, Turley is not on the right and does not like Trump. But he’s usually fair in what he writes.

Andrew C. McCarthy is on the right but can’t stand Trump. When Russiagate began, he thought that people in the FBI and DOJ were going to be straight-shooters. But several years ago the scales dropped from his eyes, at least regarding Russiagate. Now he writes:

Among the most troubling conclusions in special counsel John Durham’s Russiagate report is that the FBI — even as it relied on Clinton-campaign-funded opposition research against Donald Trump that it failed to verify — ignored strongly supported intelligence that Hillary Clinton was intentionally smearing Trump as a Putin puppet.

To my mind, Durham is being too kind.

Perusing the report, I find it impossible to draw any other conclusion than that the FBI, and the Obama administration more broadly, did not ignore the intelligence about Clinton’s strategy but rather that the law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus of the United States government knowingly abetted Clinton’s implementation of the strategy….

Clearly, there was a Clinton campaign strategy to frame Trump. Yet the most sensible interpretation of the evidence Durham has amassed is not that the FBI, in evaluating its collusion evidence, failed to weigh intercepted Russian intelligence about that strategy. It is that the FBI was well aware of Clinton’s strategy, fully expected Clinton to be the next president, and helped implement the strategy, regardless of what Russian spies may or may not have thought about it…

The FBI knowingly treated Clinton with kid gloves. FBI lawyer Lisa Page warned the bureau’s senior intelligence investigator, Peter Strzok, to tread lightly in interviewing Clinton about the email scandal — fearful that, upon winning the election, Clinton would otherwise be vengeful against the FBI…

Durham documents that President Obama, Vice President Biden, top intelligence officials, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI director Comey were fully briefed by CIA director John Brennan on Russia’s assessment of Clinton’s plan to frame Trump.

McCarthy’s take on the FBI’s motive is interesting. Perhaps it’s even true. The idea is that the FBI wanted to curry favor with the next president, who would of course be Hillary Clinton.

But I don’t think that’s it, or at best it’s only a small part of it. For example, if they had thought Trump was going to be elected, would they have supported him and gone against her? I very strongly doubt it. I think their hatred of Trump and support of Clinton was motivated by two things. The first was their ideological kinship with Clinton. The second was Trump’s “drain the swamp” threat. They are part of the swamp, and he represented a direct threat to their power. And power is the name of the game.

The post More on Durham, the FBI, and Clinton vs. Trump; from Andrew C. McCarthy and Jonathan Turley appeared first on The New Neo.

To wit:

“I know we’re all focused on the 2022 midterm elections, and they are incredibly important, but we also have to look ahead because, you know what, our opponents certainly are,” Clinton said in the video. “Right-wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential election, and they’re not making a secret of it.”…

“Just think, if that happens, the 2024 presidential election could be decided not by the popular vote or even the anachronistic Electoral College but by state legislatures, many of them Republican-controlled,” Clinton said before promoting Indivisible’s Crush the Coup campaign.

“Crush the Coup” has a webpage, of course, which you can easily reach by doing a search. Its rationale is that Republicans (MAGA Republicans, that is) must be defeated at the state level in 2022 to avoid an election steal by the Republicans in 2024 at the presidential level. It focuses on the key states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona. Here’s their reasoning, such as it is:

In June, the Supreme Court announced it would hear Moore v. Harper this fall, with a decision likely coming next year. Right now, right-wing advocates are urging the Supreme Court to adopt an extremist and fringe legal doctrine, called “independent state legislature theory,” that would give state legislatures unchecked authority over election procedures and voting laws, and would grant broad power to gerrymander electoral maps, even if those laws blatantly violated the state’s constitution. An extreme ruling from the right-wing Supreme Court could have huge implications for how states run federal elections and ultimately give state lawmakers the power to overturn voters’ choice in presidential elections.

So what they’re saying is that their own failure to pass HR1 and wrest election control from the states, and the possibility of a SCOTUS ruling that yes, states set their own election rules (within Constitutional boundaries, of course), would somehow lead to each state legislature doing whatever it wanted in an election and overruling the will of the people.

What is the actual issue being decided by Moore v. Harper? This one:

Whether a state’s judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the “Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives … prescribed … by the Legislature thereof,” and replace them with regulations of the state courts’ own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a “fair” or “free” election.

In other words, state legislatures have the express right to make laws regarding elections in their states, and yet in 2020 state court judges overruled legislatures and established their own rules. According to Hillary and the Crush the Coup people, the votes of the elected state legislative bodies are somehow less reflective of the people’s will than the decision of state judges (mostly unelected, I presume) and some also-unelected “experts” chosen by these judges.

More on the “independent state legislature theory” here:

In Moore v. Harper, the speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, Timothy Moore, asks the Supreme Court to consider what has come to be known as the “independent state legislature” theory — which holds that the Constitution gives state legislatures alone the power to regulate federal elections in their states, without the oversight of state courts. Moore notes that the Constitution’s elections clause states that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Moore argues that unlike other constitutional provisions, the clause does not refer to the state itself, but a particular institution of government.

Last November, the North Carolina legislature enacted a new map for congressional elections in response to the 2020 U.S. Census data. Respondent Rebecca Harper and 25 other North Carolina voters sued in state court to prevent the new map from taking effect, arguing that the map violated various provisions of the North Carolina constitution and represented an unlawful partisan gerrymander. In February 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court enjoined the new map, concluding that although the state legislature “has the duty to apportion North Carolina’s congressional … districts,” the legislature’s “exercise of this power is subject to limitations imposed by other [state] constitutional provisions,” and “the state judiciary … has the responsibility to protect the state constitutional rights of the citizens.” The court further concluded that the map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. On remand, the state trial court issued an order adopting a different congressional map proposed by three court-appointed experts.

Moore and other state legislators then filed an emergency application asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the North Carolina Supreme Court’s order invalidating the legislature’s map and to stay the state trial court’s order adopting the replacement map. The justices denied emergency relief. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, filed a dissenting opinion, calling the independent-state-legislature theory “an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law” and saying that “further review of the judgment below may be warranted once a petition for a writ of certiorari is filed.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the decision to deny the stay, but he agreed that “if the Court receives petitions for certiorari raising the issue, … the Court should grant certiorari … [and] carefully consider and decide the issue next Term after full briefing and oral argument.”

So the case is really about unelected judges, advised by an unelected panel of “experts,” redrawing the voting districts and usurping the power explicitly given state legislatures by the US Constitution. You’ve got to give Hillary and Crush the Coup points for creative “reimagining” of what a case is about.

The post What’s even better than election denial? appeared first on The New Neo.