Mediaboss Marketing

Reaction to the 34-count indictment against former President Donald Trump and his responding not-guilty plea has largely split along party lines here in Lee County.

Republican leaders question both the propriety and veracity of the felony counts filed against Trump by the Manhattan District Attorneys Office after presentation to a grand jury.

Democrats point out that the grand jury found there was cause to proceed with the case, which alleges that Trump falsified business records while in the act of violating campaign finance laws in a hush-money scheme ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

And the Libertarian Party rep points out that while many members disapproved of Trump, there are questions aplenty in the unprecedented and seemingly weak indictment based primarily on the testimony of a convicted liar.

There are few of us (if any) Libertarians who approve of Trump when President due to his frivolous spending, anti-2A actions and statements, not firing Dr. Fauci, while also funding Big Pharma during the insane Lockdown era. The current indictment, when weighed against his previous behavior, seems a bit minuscule in stature. Yet, a former President faces charges, so let us analyze, said Michael Higgins, chair of the Libertarian Party of Lee County in response to a Breeze query.

Alvin Bragg Jr., the Prosecutor on this case, is a popularly elected official of Manhattan (88% D, 12% R) who graduated at Harvard. He is known to be astute and diligent when dealing with cases, Higgins wrote. This indictment however, contains 34 felony charges which are all 1 paragraph recreated 34 times lacking information on dates, names, or chain of events other than describing the crime of Corporate funds being used to pay off a Campaign debt (presumably Stormy Daniels hush money and Karen McDougal kill story). Keep in mind this case was in front of Federal Attorney General Merrick Garland 3 years now and he never brought forward charges. So why would NYC?

A conviction may be hard, he added.

An indictment against the former President of the United States is unprecedented, especially in the middle of a Presidential campaign. The Prosecutors main witness is a convicted liar. This does note bode well (or) seem like a strong case for a Judge and Grand Jury to weigh upon. The Prosecutor may be accused of interfering with the 2024 Presidential Election. Trump could easily claim he mismanaged Corporate funds to save his narrative rather than it be politically motivated. I believe it will be hard to convict Trump, even with an Manhattan jury.

Higgins reiterated his reasoning.

This 1 paragraph repeated 34 times is vague indictment, seems like a weak case due to the circumstances forementioned, and will likely help the former President look stronger in the end if he wins. The pending Mar-a-Lago case may be more challenging, even though Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Joe Biden have allegedly mismanaged classified documents without prosecution themselves but hey, What difference does it make?!'

The one glimmer?

The one positive we can all gather from this indictment is it setting a new standard for arresting bad politicians in high places no matter who they are, Higgins said.

Kari Lerner, chair of the Democratic Party of Lee County, said simply that laws apply to everyone regardless of position held or achieved.

No one is above the law, the grand jury found cause to bring charges, she said when reached by phone Wednesday. It was not a political party the grand jury looked at the evidence and there was evidence to indicate that crimes were committed.

Republican leaders, though, call foul, saying not only is the pursuit of the case politically motivated, but that it hits at the underpinning of democracy.

Tara Jenner, vice chair Lee County Republican Executive Committee, said understanding how the grand jury process works puts the indictment in context.

First off, an indictment by a grand jury is brought down when a prosecutor presents his case, she said when reached by phone. And the defense has no option of presenting any information and the prosecutor has no obligation to provide any exculpatory information, either. So its extremely one-sided and just think about it they dont have to tell you about any exculpatory information at all.

While the grand jury indicted, this does not mean the prosecution proved its case. That will be determined only at trial.

In this country youre innocent until proven guilty and the full burden is on the prosecutor, she added.

She said she read the indictment documents and the lack of specificity related to the charges is especially concerning as is the redundancy of the 34 counts.

It says nothing, Jenner said, adding there are some serious questions concerning statute limitations, among other things.

In my mind it is coming across as politicizing the judicial system, which is tantamount the election tampering, she said. The timing is circumspect why now, whats going on now?

Manhattan District Attorney Braggs is undermining our democracy and American principles by using his office to press felony charges against a former Republican President past the statute of limitations, said Olivia Erfman-Tenzel, president of the Southwest Florida Young Republicans via email in response to a Breeze query.

The indictment of President Trump is clearly an effort by the democratic establishment to undermine the Republican Party in the 2024 election. Their tactic is to attack our American values and our own citizens by weaponizing the FBI and District attorneys offices across the Nation.

She added this is not only an attack on Trump.

Deploying federal and state agencies to attack political opposition is a page out of the authoritarian playbook, Erfman-Tenzel wrote. Millions of Americans have fled authoritarian regimes to seek a life where freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, are fundamentally protected. A life where you can disagree with your government and not be incarcerated for it.

We must take these actions against President Trump seriously because it is a direct attack on every American and the freedoms we sadly have taken for granted.

Congressman Byron Donalds, R-19, a strong supporter of Trump who represents most of Lee and Collier counties, accused Bragg of making the criminal prosecution a political act.

In the U.S. we DO NOT turn the criminal justice system against political opponents, Donalds stated on Twitter where he also remarked that today is an infamous day in American history on Tuesday, the day Trump appeared for his arraignment on charges of falsifying business records in the first degree.

I am NOT Impressed by DA Braggs indictment. This is a man who ran for Manhattan DA on getting Donald Trump, not safe streets in New York City. His political mindset is tainted & he is trying to become a star as the one who arrested Trump, he tweeted.

Trump will be in Fort Myers on Friday, April 21, at the Caloosa Sound & Convention Center where he will be the keynote speaker at the Lee GOPs 2023 Lincoln Reagan Dinner.

This is neither a campaign event nor a fundraiser for the former president, Jenner emphasized.

Other speakers will include Congressman Byron Donalds, Congressman Greg Stube, Roger Stone and Michael Thompson.

The event sold out but, through some reorganization of seating, an extra row of tables has been added and at press time there were some tickets remaining.

Visit LeeGOP.org for tickets or additional information on the Lincoln Reagan Dinner, an event held by local Republic Party organizations nationally as a fundraiser for their respective events and activities.

Nathan Mayberg contributed to this report.

Continue reading here:
Trump indictment sparks strong local reaction | News, Sports, Jobs ... - Fort Myers Beach Talk

TULSA, Okla. So far, in therace for president, five republicans and one democrat announced they're running.

Now, also joining the race is the Tiger King, also knownas Joe Exotic.

FOX23 Investigative Reporter Janna Clark spoke with Jow from prison about why he wants to run.

Legally, a convicted felon can run for president. Joe Exotic is the third person to try.

From his prisoncell in Fort Worth, Joe told FOX23 how living behind bars gives him a different perspective, aperspectivehe believes can help change the country for the better.

The Oklahoma zoo owner Joseph Maldonado Passage, or Joe Exotic, was convictedin 2019 of wildlife offenses and hiring someone to kill Carole Baskin.

Baskin runs a big cat sanctuary in Florida.

Joe received a sentence of 21 years.

Janna spoke to Joe on the phone may times as he fought for his freedom. He keeps telling her he is innocent.

Now, he's running for president, again.He ran in 2016 as an independent, as well.

Two years later, he ran for Oklahoma governor. both times, he lost.

No he's running in the 2024 presidential election.

"Now that I've seen the broken system from in here, and what it's going to take to fix this country and put it on the right track, I said, why not?" Joe said.

Joe decided to run as a libertarian in this election. Janna asked him why he made that decision.

"I did because, you know, in the beginning, I thought a libertarian was more in the middle. The more that I'm getting to know libertarians and how crazy they are because they want to just hand a gun to everybody in America, with no training or nothingI'm actually considering changing my party to a Democrat and giving President Biden a run for his money," Joe answered.

Janna asked him how he expects to run a country from behind bars.

"Well, first of all, if I was to ever get lucky enough to win, I could pardon myself the first day," Joe said.

He then said his first task as president would be making sure the country is not sending money abroad. After that, he would tackle the border and then ensure better care for the elderly, the sick, the veterans and strengthen mental health care in the U.S.

"We're so busy sticking our nose in everybody else's business around the world, and helping everybody else's culture problems out, we're not even taking care of our own country. And it's time that we start," Joe added.

Joe's spokesperson sent FOX23 information on his platform as a candidate, which is to reevaluate the prison system.

"Let me just give you a wake up lesson real quick. All right, you're never going to stop drugs from coming across the border that's over 2000 miles long. When you can't stop drugs from walking in the front door of a fenced-in federal prison. This is the biggest cesspool of drugs and corruption I've ever been forced to live in my life. Prison does nothing to fix anything," Joe said.

Janna asked him if there was more crime in prison than out of prison.

"You create monsters in here," Joe said. "Because if you weren't a drug addict when you got here, you're going to be when you leave."

Joe said he has received a lot of positive feedback since announcing his run.

"You know, there's gonna be haters out there that can't get along with anybody, that are just keyboard warriors, but I have a lot of positive feedback," he said.

Joe said this is not a publicity stunt, he is serious about running.

"Trump is indicted. President Biden's under investigation. Why the hell not run from prison?" Joe said.

Janna asked him if he believes he really has a chance of winning.

"Look, this is how I'm looking at this right now. There's 2 million people incarcerated in this country right now, and there's probably close to 18 million that have been at some point or another. All I need is ten of their friends or family, and I've got this," Joe said.

Joe is now 60 years old, He's been in prison for six years. He told FOX23 he has been waiting 11 months for the Oklahoma City judge to give an answer to his motion.

The motion will determine if Joe should get a new trial based on the new evidence his attorneys presented in court.

Read this article:
FOX23 speaks with Joe Exotic on his 2024 presidential run - KOKI FOX 23 TULSA

I dont want less regulation. I dont want more regulation. I want smarter regulation, he told voters during a candidates forum.

Get N.H. Morning Report

A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.

Sorens captured 1,110 votes on March 28, but it wasnt nearly enough. The two incumbents, Arnie Rosenblatt and Thomas Quinn, sailed to reelection with 1,954 votes and 2,283 votes respectively.

Some have celebrated Sorens defeat as a sign that voters are paying attention and rejecting a brand of hardcore libertarianism that has led many in New Hampshire to view Free Staters with a sense of weary wariness. That may be true. But theres another layer to this story thats easy to overlook.

Sorens didnt campaign on a radical agenda to scrap Amhersts zoning rules, nor did he conceal his identity or his libertarian views. Rather, he made a meticulous case for his candidacy, publicly explained his rationale for supporting certain measures and opposing others, and built a notably broad coalition along the way.

Planning and zoning issues cut across ideological divides, Sorens told the Globe. In my housing work, Ive spoken to receptive audiences from all over the political map.

Reforming land-use regulation at the local level may help alleviate New Hampshires critical housing shortage, but over the past few years, Amherst has grown more restrictive toward new development, Sorens said. Thats what spurred him to get involved, to show the planning board that the townspeople arent on board with a dont-build-anything approach.

Our town doesnt need to squelch housing further; if anything, we need a broader range of housing options for young people, retirees, and essential workers or were going to strangle ourselves, he said.

His website touted support from past colleagues and a variety of locals, including former Amherst Planning Board member Marilyn Eisenberg Peterman, who said she concluded the Free Stater issue would be irrelevant to this office.

I believe that Jason will bring some sanity back to planning and zoning, she wrote.

Sorens found common cause with conservatives and progressives alike by campaigning against what he sees as a form of NIMBY-ism stifling his communitys potential. It earned him a resounding endorsement from Cornerstone, a conservative Christian advocacy group that praised his pro-family approach.

Im not surprised that Sorens is getting support from across the political spectrum, Cornerstone executive director Shannon McGinley told the Globe. When it comes to housing policy, the division between pro-family and anti-family does not exactly map on to the traditional left-right political divide. There are a few Democrats who do want to make New Hampshire an attractive place to raise children, and there are certainly some Republicans who dont want any families with children living in their town.

When it comes to housing policy, the division between pro-family and anti-family does not exactly map on to the traditional left-right political divide.

Kathleen Cavalaro, a progressive Democrat from Rochester, is no fan of the Free State Projects current leadership or the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire in its current form. But she has urged Democrats to consider collaborating with principled old party libertarians on shared priorities. To that end, she called on Democrats in Amherst to help Sorens win.

In my opinion, Democrats need to be working with anyone who is good on housing policy, but we have the Free State blinders in our eyes, Cavalaro told the Globe.

But the alarm bells kept blaring for voters like Jack Child, an recently retired Amherst resident who stood by the entrance of Souhegan High School on March 28 to hold a sign in support of reelecting Rosenblatt and Quinn. Child, a veteran who co-founded Veterans Service Brands after retiring as an airline captain, said it was his first time electioneering outside a polling place. He was motivated, he said, by his town being targeted by the Free State Project.

Without delving into the policy weeds, Child hinted at the stakes: I chose Amherst because of its rural character, he said. Id like for us to try to preserve that.

His sentiment is shared widely in the town of nearly 12,000 people, where 82 percent of residents listed rural character as among their high priorities in a 2021 survey about what the town should consider in updating its master plan. The survey also found that 71 percent of residents listed limit residential density as a high priority.

Sorens faulted the current planning board majority for seemingly arbitrary decisions that resulted in the town losing three court cases in less than two years.

Rosenblatt, who has been on the board for about 25 years and who has served as its chairman, said the board is committed to an even-handed application of the law.

Theres going to be development in Amherst, and legally were going to be consistent with whatever regulatory and statutory structure we have, he said.

Rosenblatt said the board is doing its job when it scrutinizes applications for new development in town and weighs competing interests. Its not accurate to suggest the board members are a bunch of NIMBYs who aim to thwart development, he said.

On the one hand, I love Amherst the way it is. On the other hand, I fully recognize that theres a need for housing. I recognize that people have rights as landowners. And we need to reconcile the two. And its not always that easy, he said. But its also not right to make it simplistic and say that someone is just dismissing something out of hand.

Rosenblatt said he views Sorens as a nice guy, but he appears to be more sympathetic towards more intensive development than I probably am comfortable with.

Given the widespread support for preserving the towns rural character, perhaps it should come as no surprise that the March 28 ballot included several warrant articles that supporters said would guard against unchecked growth, minimize the burden on schools and public safety systems, and ease impacts on wildlife habitats and water resources.

One of the proposed zoning ordinance changes, Article 52, sought to prevent unsightly development by tightening restrictions for building on lots along Amhersts scenic roads. The minimum frontage for a lot along such roads would increase from 200 feet to 300 feet.

That change would threaten to upend the retirement plans of Richard Rick OLoughlin and Deborah Rock, who live in a nearly 3,300-square-foot home on one of Amhersts scenic roads.

OLoughlin and Rock said they bought 2.3 acres of land adjacent to their current property. Their plan is to build a single-story, senior-friendly house on the new lot, so they can downsize, sell their current place, and settle into retirement. But the new lot has only about 260 feet of frontage. So they worry Article 52 could render their land undevelopable, potentially reducing its value by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The town is taking away our land rights, and we have to continue to pay taxes on them, so other people can drive by and say, Oh, isnt that pretty, OLoughlin said. Its unfair. Its unjust.

Despite their disagreement on other matters, both Rosenblatt and Sorens expressed opposition to Article 52. But a narrow majority of voters cast their ballots in favor of the proposal anyway.

Ordinarily, that simple majority would be enough to enact the change; however, its fate remains undetermined because of a provision of state law that allows landowners to protest proposed changes to local zoning ordinances.

A protest petition against Article 52 was filed with the town prior to the March 28 vote. If it succeeds, then the approval threshold would rise from a simple majority of votes cast to a two-thirds majority. That would defeat the proposal.

The whole protest petition process is so technical that town administrator Dean Shankle said Amherst had to get help from an expert in geographic information systems to determine whether the petition has enough signatures from the right landowners. That process is ongoing.

Shankle said he has worked in town government in New Hampshire for 35 years, and this is the first time hes encountered a protest petition. As if that werent complicated enough, the petition against Article 52 is one of five protest petitions that Amherst is dealing with, he said.

Its unclear how long it will take for Amherst officials to determine conclusively whether the contested warrant articles passed or failed, but Sorens signaled optimism that the protest petitions would prevail.

The good news, Sorens wrote in a tweet after acknowledging his loss, is that if all protest petitions are certified, every single exclusionary measure on the ballot will have been defeated!

Sorens said he wasnt personally involved in collecting signatures for the protest petitions. A local group hes been working with wasnt involved either, though members may have acted individually to support the protest petitions, he said.

His post-election message was consistent with what he said prior to the votes being tallied. While he stood outside the polls and chatted with voters about the intricacies of Amhersts zoning proposals, Sorens told the Globe that he saw multiple paths to success: he could perform well as a candidate, or voters could defeat the ill-conceived proposals. Either way, that would send a message, he said, that the town needs to take a more reasonable approach to planning and growth.

This article has been updated with additional information about an Amherst resident at the polling location.

Steven Porter can be reached at steven.porter@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @reporterporter.

Continued here:
Father of the Free State Project sees good news despite losing ... - The Boston Globe

I would personally like to thank Alvin Bragg, the George Soros-funded New York County District Attorney, for his ill-advised decision to pursue charging Donald Trump.

This tactic straight out of the Communist Manifesto playbook will quickly and severely boomerang on him and the Democratic Party by now awakening a group of sleeping Republican, Independent, Libertarian and possibly Democratic voters to what is really taking place not only in New York City but across our country.

It is comical to me that the leftist complicit media continues reporting this as a hush money case, as though paying hush money were a crime. It is not a crime. People and companies frequently pay others to not speak openly or to not file suit over a matter. It is better known as a non-disclosure agreement or a settlement. It is not an admission of guilt. It is typically a matter of practicality where it becomes cheaper to pay someone than fight it out in court or deal with the embarrassment of their allegation, whether true or not. Regardless of what spin Politico or fact checkers try to put on it, Bill Clintons payment of $850,000 to Paula Jones to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit was the identical type of scenario. The leftists claim that Clintons payment wasnt hush money because Clintons philandering with Jones was already made widely known is irrelevant because again, paying hush money isnt a crime. Clinton never admitted guilt, but paid Jones to go away, be quiet and not pursue her lawsuit.

In any case, while hush money itself is not illegal, payments made so that people do not report a crime or testify of a crime, payments that violate campaign finance laws, and lying under oath about such things are crimes. The alleged $130,000 payment by Donald Trump has already been investigated as a possible criminal act on two occasions by two separate governmental law enforcement agencies. Both investigations determined the matter lacked the elements and merits needed to constitute a crime and therefore to prosecute. So now Mr. Bragg, and ultimately George Soros and their elite globalist friends, will pay a very high price over these baseless charges just to gain their momentary MAGA-hating orgy of a Donald Trump perp walk or fingerprinting or mug shot or possibly, the coup de grace, a handcuffing photo op!

Even if Bragg is betting a New York City jury might convict Donald Trump, he will ultimately be exonerated on appeal to the first legitimate court his case reaches. And when the exoneration of Donald Trump comes, whether early or late in the process, it will be the exact catapult he and the Republican Party have been waiting for. Thank you Alvin Bragg for busying yourself, your staff and your precious NYC resources with this case instead of focusing upon the skyrocketing rate of violent crime in your once lovely, now-turned-cesspool city. Please receive this as a high-five from all Republicans for being the political wind beneath our wings! Its just the gift and the lift our party needed!

Donald Peters currently serves as the Chairman of the Lycoming County Republican Committee, a group of 80 elected and appointed volunteers from various communities throughout Lycoming County. Peters has been a Lycoming County resident for 27 years.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

View original post here:
Indictment a gift and a lift | News, Sports, Jobs - Williamsport Sun-Gazette

Shaneel Lal counter-protesting at Posie Parker's event in Albert Park on March 25. Photo / Dean Purcell

OPINION:

Shaneel Lals column provides a wonderful chance to talk about what free speech is and isnt.

There is the high school libertarian version - you can say anything to anyone at any time, and anyone who disagrees is a cry baby. But thats not a realistic model that any serious person believes in 2023.

In the world we live today, there are a web of rules that even hardcore free-speech advocates like me respect. What they have in common is that they can be fairly applied to all, in accordance with the rule of law.

The Crimes Act has several prohibitions on free speech. You cant directly incite another person to commit a crime. You can say the rich have had it too good too long. You cannot say to an excited mob go and burn down that big house to teach the rich a lesson. Nor can you threaten a person with a crime. You cannot blackmail someone, nor can you be a criminal nuisance (the classic yelling fire in a crowded theatre).

Those restrictions bind us all, but there are others you can voluntarily enter. If you work for a high-tech firm, you have probably signed a non-disclosure agreement, promising you wont tell anyone the firms secrets. If you are sworn into Parliament, you agree to a set of rules called the Standing Orders that govern what you can and cant say in certain circumstances.

If you become a Cabinet Minister youre bound by the Cabinet Manual which includes things like exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional.

So why did ACT and many others spend years successfully fighting against so-called hate speech laws, if we accept all the above restrictions? Why did Labour ultimately decide not to introduce more restrictions on speech, after being gung ho?

In a word, subjectivity. All the above restrictions are matters of fact, or private contract. You can tell if youve done wrong by reading the law, and it applies to all equally.

Hate speech laws abandoned by Labour would have made it a crime to intentionally incite/stir up, maintain or normalise hatred through threatening, abusive or insulting communications, including inciting violence. How could a person accused defend themselves? How do you prove that you didnt intend to stir up hatred using insulting language?

As the Royal Commission on the Christchurch mosque attacks said, The difference between legally criminalised hate speech and the vigorous exercise of the right to express opinions is not easy to capture in legislative language.

When challenged to define hate speech on television, then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said you know it when you see it. Not really the kind of legal precision youd want when defending yourself against jail time.

Usually the point of the law is you know what actions would break it and can defend yourself if accused. As historian Paul Moon has said, hate speech laws are so subjective the accused wont know if theyre guilty until the point of conviction.

ACT opposed hate speech laws because they are subjective. They are inconsistent with the rule of law in a way that other restrictions are not. They would be applied more often against the politically unpopular, meaning law enforcement became opinion enforcement.

Lal says I, hypocritically, only object to free speech when my feelings are hurt, or I disagree. All the examples they cite are of legitimate restrictions on speech that Ive always supported.

Rawiri Waititi should apologise for threatening to poison me (threats). I blocked Golriz Gharamans attempt to speak in Parliament after she repeatedly interrupted mine. If you want the privilege of speaking in Parliament, you must grant it to others (standing orders).

Tusiata Avia performed a poem where she suggested Captain Cook, and white men like him should be hunted down and stabbed with pig knives (incitement).

The Prime Minster should sack Marama Davidson for breaching the Cabinet Manual she signed up to and for being an ineffective minister as Ive said (Cabinet Manual).

Far from having my feelings hurt by Jacinda calling me an arrogant prick, I accepted her apology and proposed we auction the Hansard, raising $100,100 for the Prostate Cancer Foundation, supporting pricks everywhere!

As a matter of fact Ardern texted her apology after I raised a point of order. But my raising it also meant it would be written down in Hansard and later auctioned (standing orders again)!

I could go on but, suffice to say, free speech matters, it is the foundation of a free society, alongside the rule of law it depends on. If you believe in free speech, understanding its lawful limits is as important as defending it against unlawful erosion.

See the original post:
David Seymour: What free speech really is - New Zealand Herald