Incels place themselves slightly to the left of the political spectrum. https://t.co/CjKwCNDtsS pic.twitter.com/rajYTXjrXC

— Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf) February 20, 2024

!neolibs have s*x

Even redditoids can recognize how r-slurred it is to allow non-citizens to vote.

NYC law that would have allowed 800K noncitizens to vote struck as unconstitutional by appeals court: ‘Enacted in violation'

A controversial New York City law that would have allowed 800,000 noncitizens, but legal residents, to vote in municipal elections was struck down as unconstitutional by a state appeals court Wednesday.

“We determine that this local law was enacted in violation of the New York State Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law, and thus, must be declared null and void,” Appellate Judge Paul Wooten wrote in the 3-1 majority decision.

Wooten said the state constitution broadly refers to only citizens having the right to vote in elections, municipal as well as statewide or for state legislative offices.

“Article IX provides that the elected officials of ‘local governments' shall be elected by ‘the people,' which incorporates by reference the eligibility requirements for voting under article II, section 1, applying exclusively to ‘citizens,'” the judge wrote.

The decision upholds a lower court ruling issued by Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Ralph Porzio in June 2022, which Mayor Eric Adams and the City Council had appealed.

Writing for the Appellate Division's 2nd Department, Wooten said that if noncitizens are allowed to vote, it stands to reason they could also run for mayor.

He ruled that such a dramatic change violated the Municipal Home Rule Law, saying the council and mayor had failed to put the issue on the ballot for voters to decide.

Judges Angela Iannacci and Helen Voutsinas concurred in the ruling.

Judge Lilian Wan issued a dissenting opinion.

“The majority, by deeming the noncitizen voting law invalid, effectively prohibits municipalities across the state from deciding for themselves the persons who are entitled to a voice in the local electoral process,” she wrote.

“The majority's determination also disenfranchises nearly one million residents of the City, despite the fact that its people's duly elected representatives have opted to enfranchise those same residents.”

Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella was the lead plaintiff in the case along with Assemblyman Michael Tannousis (R-Staten Island), among others.

“During a time where nearly 200,000 migrants have flooded our city and streets, disrupting the public and attacking our police officers, my colleagues and I have worked tirelessly to protect our voting laws which were created for citizens of the United States,” Tannousis said.

“Democracy always wins and I am proud to say it was delivered yet again today.”

US Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), who represents Staten Island, was also among the lawmakers who applauded the decision.

“There is nothing more important than preserving the integrity of our election system, and in today's age, the government should be working to create more trust in our elections, not less,” the congresswoman said.

“The right to vote is a sacred right given only to United States citizens. It is my hope that left-wing lawmakers stop pushing these unconstitutional and reckless measures that dilute the voices of American citizens,” she added.

A city Law Department spokesman said, “We're reviewing the court's decision and evaluating next steps.”

!chuds !burgers

https://x.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1760391268222505274

lol smartest journo linked to files on his computer !chuds

NEW YORK (AP) --- Occupants of the White House have grumbled over news coverage practically since the place was built. Now it's Joe Biden's turn: With a reelection campaign underway, there are signs that those behind the president are starting to more aggressively and publicly challenge how he is portrayed.

Within the past two weeks, an administration aide sent an unusual letter to the White House Correspondents' Association complaining about coverage of a special counsel's report on Biden's handling of classified documents. In addition, the president's campaign objected to its perception that negative stories about Biden's age got more attention than remarks by Donald Trump about the NATO alliance.

It's not quite "enemy of the people" territory. But it is noticeable.

"It is a strategy," said Frank Sesno, a professor at George Washington University and former CNN Washington bureau chief. "It does several things at once. It makes the press a foil, which is a popular pattern for politicians of all stripes."

It can also distract voters from bad news. And while some newsrooms quickly dismiss the criticism, he says, others may pause and think twice about what they write.

THE WHITE HOUSE OBJECTS TO THE FRAMING OF STORIES

The letter from Ian Sams, spokesman for the White House counsel's office, suggested that reporters improperly framed stories about the Feb. 8 release of Special Counsel Robert Hur's report. Sams pointed to stories by CBS News, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press and others emphasizing that Hur had found evidence that Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified material. Sam wrote that much of that so-called evidence didn't hold up and was negated by Hur's decision not to press charges.

He said it was critical to address it when "significant errors" like misstating the findings and conclusions of a federal investigation of a president occur.

It was Sams' second foray into press criticism in a few months; last fall he urged journ*lists to give more scrutiny to House Republicans and the reasons behind their impeachment inquiry of Biden.

"Everybody makes mistakes, and nobody's perfect," Sams told the AP. "But a healthy back and forth over what's the full story helps make both the press and the government sharper in how the country and world get the news they need to hear."

Kelly O'Donnell, president of the correspondents' association and an NBC News correspondent, suggested Sams' concerns were misdirected and should be addressed to individual news organizations.

"It is inappropriate for the White House to utilize internal pool distribution channels, primarily for logistics and the rapid sharing of need-to-know information, to disseminate generalized critiques of news coverage," O'Donnell said.

In a separate statement, Biden campaign spokesman T.J. Ducklo criticized media outlets for time spent discussing the 81-year-old president's age and mental capacity, an issue that was raised anew when Biden addressed the Hur report with reporters. He suggested that was less newsworthy and important than Trump's NATO comments. Americans deserve a press corps that covers Trump "with the seriousness and ferocity this moment requires," said Ducklo, who resigned from the White House in 2021 for threatening a reporter.

To be fair, deadline times likely affected the initial disparity in coverage that Ducklo pointed out. And Trump's remarks have hardly been ignored by media outlets.

On Wednesday, Biden's campaign issued a statement headlined "Full of Malarkey," that criticized The Times for a fact check it ran on some of the president's statements about the economy. The campaign said the newspaper "continues to give Trump a pass on lies."

A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of The Times, noted in an interview with the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journ*lism that Biden's team had been "extremely upset" about its coverage lately. "We're not anyone's opposition," he said, "and we're not anyone's lapdog."

HOW MUCH IS THE PRESIDENT AVAILABLE?

The criticism comes amid the backdrop of unhappiness among some journ*lists about how much Biden is made available for questions --- an issue that surfaced again when Biden turned down an opportunity to appear before tens of millions of Americans in an interview during the Super Bowl pregame show.

The 33 news conferences Biden has given during the first three years of his presidency is lower than any other American president in that time span since Ronald Reagan, said Martha Kumar, a Towson University professor emeritus and expert on presidents and the press. Similarly, the 86 interviews Biden has given is lower than any president since she began studying records with Reagan. By comparison, Barack Obama gave 422 interviews during his first three years.

Instead, Biden prefers more informal appearances where reporters ask a few questions, with comparatively little opportunity for follow-up, she said: The 535 such sessions that Biden conducted was second only to Trump's 572.

One example followed Biden's remarks Friday after the death of Russian dissident Aleksey Navalny. Another was Biden's early evening availability following the release of Hur's report, a chaotic scene where reporters tried to outshout one another. The president's performance, and remarks about his forgetfulness that were made in Hur's report, led to more questions about the impact of age on his ability.

"It did not serve him well," Kumar said. Some on Biden's team, meanwhile, believe the president showed a combativeness in the face of criticism that Americans will appreciate.

Sesno said he can understand the Biden team's worry that the president's fitness for the job becomes a story they lose control of, much like former President Gerald Ford's stumbles led to the perception that he was a bumbler. Nikki Usher, a media professor at the University of San Diego, said she was surprised that Biden's team hadn't become more aggressive earlier.

"He needs to jump out in front of the narrative," Usher said.

The Biden pushback seems mild in comparison to Trump's epic badmouthing of news organizations like CNN and The New York Times. Republican voters, in general, are much more apt to respond to efforts that make journ*lists the villain. Democrats, meanwhile, tend to have a greater appreciation for the press' role in a democracy, Usher says, so the Biden team has to be more careful with attacks.

Particularly with the age issue, there's only so much that the president's team can say, Sesno said: "People will make up their minds based on what they see and hear from Joe Biden."

Really good to see this line in the PM's speech yesterday. Of the 8 former eastern-bloc OECD members, NZ now is less productive than half of them.

But.....where is the suite of policies equal to the challenge of reversing NZ's continued relative decline?https://t.co/V1ljlDDWh4 pic.twitter.com/DUmh7tnyYj

— Michael Reddell (@MHReddell) February 18, 2024

I have bought so much tinfoil in the past ten days. I will be the tin foil king! None shall stop my conquest of the wasteland!

Ep. 75 The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. "What I’m describing is military rule," says Mike Benz. "It’s the inversion of democracy." pic.twitter.com/hDTEjAf89T

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 16, 2024

https://x.com/SmythRadio/status/1758701969458253850

Short clip for the discerning dramatard ☝️

Celeb reviews 👇

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1758669737482236322

Believe it or not this was a real thing in 2017

Bottom text

This is the moment Fani Willis and Nathan Wade decided to destroy a man's life.

No honour among thieves.

Things are going to EXPLODE. pic.twitter.com/QhloHU24YW

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) February 16, 2024

This is insanity. This b-word really just impeached a witness that was testifying positively for her case.

Common !commies W

!chuds

I believe that the only reason Merrick Garland is still the Attorney General is the political bludgeon his exit would provide Biden's antagonists

Agreed. Garland made a massive error here. Both in appointing Hur and in not requiring him to rewrite a report that as the letter says clearly violates the special counsel rules. But letting Garland go now would not look good.

I don't think it was an error. Garland is a center right Dempublican.

As I've said elsewhere: I see no evidence that he is trying to cause trouble for Biden. He is simply too cautious.

He should have told Hur to edit. Instead he published a report that violates DOJ rules.

How are the /r/law redditors unaware that any edits would need congressional approval

I was fascinated by all the Garland defenders over the years. Never understood them.

He was DA MAN back in the day. No doubt about that. But he isn't the same guy and hasn't been for quite some time. Terrible pick. Sat on his hands for 2 years

I hope we can finally retire "when you come for the king you best not miss" for good. Lmao

Garland is weak

He's Fred Rogers when we want Christopher Hitchens

Fred Rogers still did the right thing. Garland is proving that justice delayed is justice denied.

Garland was a sympathy appointment and probably not the "most" qualified given the political environment of the Country at the time. He should not be allowing anything out of his office that's not pure legal speak and language based in sound legal precedence. A Biden reelection means he will probably be out.

Funnily enough NBC is the outlet breaking an exclusive on the whole thing, not Fox News

Obviously y'alled on /r/politics: https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1aqz40w/biden_attacked_hur_for_asking_him_when_beau_died/

Biden attacked Hur for asking him when Beau died. That didn't happen, sources say.

President Joe Biden lashed out at Robert Hur last week over one particular line in the special counsel's report on his handling of classified documents: that Biden "did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died."

"How in the heck dare he raise that?" Biden told reporters in an impromptu White House press conference. "Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, it wasn't any of their darn business."

But Hur never asked that question, according to two people familiar with Hur's five-hour interview with the president over two days last October. It was the president, not Hur or his team, who first introduced Beau Biden's death, they said.

Biden raised his son's death after being asked about his workflow at a Virginia rental home from 2016 to 2018, the sources said, when a ghost writer was helping him write a memoir about losing Beau to brain cancer in 2015. Investigators had a 2017 recording showing that Biden had told the ghost writer he had found "classified stuff" in that home, the report says.

Biden began trying to recall that period by discussing what else was happening in his life, and it was at that point in the interview that he appeared confused about when Beau died, the sources said. Biden got the date --- May 30 --- correct, but not the year.

Hur's 345-page report absolved Biden of criminal wrongdoing while pointing to evidence that he took home and kept highly classified material. Even though Biden was found to have disclosed classified information to the ghost writer on three occasions, prosecutors concluded that they could not prove that the president knew it was classified information at the time.

Fiery criticism of the report from Biden supporters, though, has focused on Hur's characterizations of  the president's memory. They say the report was filled with gratuitous details about Biden's memory issues, including that the president misremembered the year Beau died. They have also seized on Biden's statement that the special counsel asked him about the date of Beau's death.

"Why in the heck are you asking that question?" former Attorney General Eric Holder, a Democrat, said Monday on MSNBC, suggesting that Hur was "a rube, perhaps," who had "shaded" what he put in the report. "What does that have to do with the retention of classified documents?"

First lady Jill Biden questioned in a fundraising letter whether Hur was using "our son's death to score political points."

Sources familiar with Biden's view of the interview say Hur induced the president to bring up his son by asking a series of personal questions related to Beau. They included questions about Biden's memoir, "Promise Me, Dad," in which he writes about his son's battle with cancer and death in 2015. Hur also asked about Biden's work for the Biden Cancer Initiative, founded in Beau's memory.

These sources did not dispute that it was Biden, not Hur, who first mentioned a date for Beau's death. But they said Biden felt betrayed by the comments in Hur's report about his memory and mental state. During the interview, Hur asked him to recall events years in the past as best he could, and Biden agreed to speak freely and expansively, rather than in the clipped and careful manner of a typical witness.

Exactly what Biden said about his son's death and other issues may ultimately become public. The two-day interview was audio-recorded and transcribed, and congressional committees are expected to push for its release.

The Justice Department, the special counsel's office and the White House declined to comment for this article.

Two people who know Hur well said that he had set out to write a balanced and thorough narrative that would explain why, despite significant evidence, he had concluded that no criminal charges would be warranted for Biden. Over the course of a yearlong investigation, Hur's team examined 7 million documents and spoke with 147 witnesses, according to his report.

Associates of Hur say that Biden'sclaim that the special counsel quizzed the president, unprompted, about his son's death from cancer is an effort to take the focus off the special counsel's findings regarding how Biden handled classified documents and his struggle to recall certain facts.

The line of questioning about the memoir was directly relevant to the central issue of the investigation, the people familiar with the interview said. Hur's team had learned that Biden was recorded in 2017 telling the ghost writer that he "found all the classified stuff downstairs," at the Virginia rental home where the two were working on the book.

In the interview, Biden told Hur that he didn't remember saying in 2017 that he had found classified documents in the home.

Hur's investigation determined that the documents Biden mentioned in 2017 were never turned over to the FBI and, in fact, were likely the same ones found in Biden's Delaware garage in 2022.

Biden's struggle to recall the period when he worked with the ghost writer were among several exchanges during the two-day interview where he appeared to forget important facts, according to the report. Hur's report also states that Biden's memory appeared to be significantly limited in the 30 hours of recorded interviews he conducted with the ghost writer in 2017.

Hur stated that those memory lapses were one reason he concluded that it would be difficult to convince a jury to convict Biden of intentionally mishandling classified information.

But Hur has come under criticism for his descriptions of what he viewed as Biden's "diminished facilities." Holder said on X that there were too many "gratuitous remarks" in Hur's report that were "flatly inconsistent with long standing DOJ traditions."

Attorney General Merrick Garland has also been criticized by Democrats for releasing the full, unredacted version of the report. Special counsel rules require them to write confidential reports to the attorney general detailing and explaining their decisions on whether to file criminal charges in a case.

In an effort at transparency, Garland has pledged to make all special counsel reports public, consistent with the Justice Department track record of releasing most special counsel reports since the office came into being in 1999.

William Barr, who was attorney general in the Trump administration, was harshly criticized for initially releasing his own two-page summary of special counsel Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia report in 2018. Several weeks later, Barr released the full document.

People familiar with the matter say Garland first saw Hur's report Feb. 5, three days before its release. Had the attorney general ordered any changes, he would have had to disclose those to Congress, as required by the special counsel regulations.

In a letter to Congress when he released the report, Garland said that he took no action to block any investigative steps by Hur, because nothing the special counsel did was "so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued."

Asked whether Garland has confidence in Biden's fitness for office, a DOJ spokeswoman replied, "Of course."

It was Garland who selected Hur, a longtime Republican and former federal prosecutor, as Biden special counsel. After graduating from Harvard University and Stanford Law School, Hur held multiple positions in the Justice Department, including serving as counsel to Christopher Wray, now the director of the FBI, when Wray was in charge of the department's criminal division.

During the Trump administration, Hur was a top adviser to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was overseeing Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation. Rosenstein said Hur is neither an ardent Trump supporter nor a partisan activist

"Rob plays it straight," Rosenstein said in an interview. "I think he wrote in that report what he believed to be the relevant facts in play as to whether or not to bring criminal charges."

From 2018 to 2021, Hur served as the U.S. attorney for Maryland, and won plaudits from the state's Democratic senators, Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen, who praised his "excellent service" and said he "faithfully followed the facts and the law."

According to federal campaign filings, Hur has donated to at least three Republican political campaigns, including $500 to former U.S. Attorney Christina Nolan, a Republican, in January 2022, when she was in the GOP Senate primary in Vermont, which she later lost.

Public records show Hur also donated $200 to Maryland GOP Gov. Larry Hogan in 2017 and $201 to GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona during his presidential campaign in 2008. All three of those politicians are by today's standards moderate Republicans, and none were ardent Trump supporters.

NBC News legal contributor Chuck Rosenberg says it's fair to question some of the language Hur used about Biden's memory in his report, but not his decision to explore and explain Biden's memory issues.

"If Hur was going to tell the attorney general that he declined to prosecute President Biden, then I believe he was also obligated to explain his rationale," Rosenberg wrote for the website Lawfare.

"Would Biden come across as forgetful? As sympathetic? As willful? As dissembling? As honest? These are crucial determinations prosecutors make all the time about witnesses and defendants," he added. "Indeed, I cannot imagine writing a report to the attorney general and not including these assessments."

People who know Hur say he did not anticipate how his descriptions of the president's memory would resonate across the political landscape. They say he believed that when his report was released, he would likely come under immediate attack from Republicans who would accuse him of going soft on Biden.

Instead, one line in Hur's 345-page report will likely live on in American presidential and political history: the special counsel's assessment that Biden would come across to jurors as a "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

Any economist who cites the dailykos or uses the term greedflation should be shot.